Duplex sump concept

[DeathWish302]

I've read the entire thread but have a few questions. I'm rebuilding my sump due to detritus build-up in the 'fuge section. My 'fuge is seperate from the main sump 'loop' and is slow flowing (~150-200gph). This has created a detritus trap regardless of the nassarius snails, crabs & worms in the 'fuge. They cannot turn over the sand fast enough. So I have decided to remove the DSB, as it has no where near the activity as the main display. This is apparent by the lack of bubbles forming on the tank walls. The main display has ~2" and has 10 times the activity.

Questions are as follows:

1) If I'm trying to remove the 'detritus trap', why should I not be concerned with the eggcrate section becoming another trap? I know it's been stated some build-up is ok but the amount produced in a normal tank cannot be processed by the small amount of benthic animals in the 2nd zone. Do xenia eat a portion of the detritus?

2) If you were to use xenia in place of the aiptasia, would you not have to light the 'aiptasia zone'? I've never personally kept the 'pest' in my tank, so I'm not familiar with the exact needs. I read in E. Bornemann's coral book that should be kept under intense lighting. Can they survive under a 13W daylight fluorescent flood lamp? If not, I may try putting these in the coast-to-coast overflow and place a serpent star and some crabs in the 'aiptasia zone'.

3) My main sump is filled with sponges and calcareous tube worms right now, so I understand the possible benefit of these creatures. What would you say is the minimum benthic zone size to be advantageous? I will likely have only 10-12" of space (in a 20L) for this zone and plan to have eggcrate every 1". Will this be nearly enough space? The area on top the eggcrate will definitely suit the algae growth.

I'm just questioning this method working with a 20L and a skimmer that takes up about half the sump. The aiptasia I'm not thrilled about, and the xenia scares me if it starts moving quickly. The eggcrate section just seems like a trap for algae fragments and detritus. I question a systems capcbility of processing such a large volume of waste in such a tiny area. Maybe the power of the benthic animals and the xenia/aiptasia/star polyps are more than I realize....

Thanks,
DW302

 

[gaspar]

First off: screwsloose that is one beautiful sump design rendition! Nice work!

Link to the vedio is here: http://www.reefvideos.com/


Gaspar has finally figured out how to resize photos using PhotoShop
and has a couple of questions for our esteemed Mr. Wilson and anyone
else contributing to this great thread.

We will try some photos:

This is the 40 gallon display tank after six months

And here is the BZ sump after six months

Well, we will keep working on posting bigger photos...

This is a close up of the benthic zone. The dark red threads
were tied in there to check water flow in various areas.

Not much growing after six months...

And here is my originasl sketch for the BZ sump

I ended up dividing the benthic zone area almost in half to make room
for a deep sand base area and incorporating a display tank over flow.

Nitrate levels are consistantly zero and so are nitrites. Low range
phosphate .01/.02, High range ph 8.8 and ammonia stays zero.

Fans running in the sump and in the display tank hood evaporate
almost a gallon of water per day. [!] I do a ten gallon water change
once a week and replace the evaporated water with distilled R.O..

So all is well. Corals are healthy, mostly holding their own but not
really growing. This is probably because I almost never turn on the
main lighting and just run the two atenics about six hours every
evening. I prefer the softer light and it seems that any time I run
the main lights there is very noticable alge increase the next day.

All in all pretty amazing for rarely running anything but atenics.

Any thoughts on all this? I would definately like to see more 'critters'
down in the benthic zone and wonder if the sand bed is really doing
any good. Thanks again for inspiring this interesting and so far
thumbs up 'Duplex Sump' project.

It has come a long way from here:

And we are even getting the photo resizing figured out!

 

[screwsloose]

so in theory it would be better to run a deep sand bed before or after the duplex and not under it or would it matter?

 

[JACOXVIII]

ok just got my 75 fuge/sump done and up & running

got a new vertex in250 skimmer
my old skimmer is 4=yr old and full of worms sponges and aiptasia

i still have the old skimmer running water threw it
what do you think will happen if i shut it of will i have big problems in the main tank
do i run it till the lower level of the fuge is seeded

 

[mr.wilson]

Good plan, great drawing "Screwloose". What drawing program do you use? The perfect set up is not known to me, but I will list a few things that I would personally implement or change. I'm not here to talk anyone out of their own idea, as it may have it's own merits. This is just how I do it, for what it's worth.

1) Raise the stand a few inches for better access to the sump and viewing of the display. Perhaps it's personal preference, but I like the stand to be at least 36" high for aquariums that are viewed from a sitting position and 42" for ones that are commonly viewed while standing. Once again, it's a personal choice. You will have problems fitting lighting, possible addition of mangrove trees or sea grass, and still be able to reach all areas of the refugium for servicing and harvesting.

2) Using the protein skimmer to move incoming water from the first (settling) compartment to the refugium area will assure that all water going through the sump will pass through the skimmer, and it will only do so once. It seems like a minor difference, but the skimmer will receive only fresh surfactant-rich water that has been skimmed from your display tank, and it will not process the same water over and over. This can add up to an exponential difference, and one that comes at no cost.

3) The feeding/breathing tube idea is yet to be proven, but an idea I still like in theory. It certainly causes no negative effect, and is another cheap modification. I would use a series of vertical tubes and have them extend to the surface for gas release/exchange. It will act in many ways like a Jaulbert plenum system, without the detritus buildup and unknown content and condition of buried levels.

4) Going three layers deep, is probably over optimistic. A 200 gallon sump seems big, but you would be surprised how quickly it fills with equipment and various zones. It would only work if you had a shallow sand bed, and modest benthic zone. The reasons I have designed the duplex filtration system is for this purpose, to stack several zones within a small footprint. I have found that the equipment required to run a reef tank exceeds the area under the display tank, in the cabinet. If you have a large work area or basement, you could employ the same practices (refugium, benthic zone, settling zone, aiptasia zone, chemical filtration (carbon, & ion exchange resin) zone, and mechanical filtration zone). The same zones could exist in greater proportion with marginal increase in cost. For example, you could use food grade 55 gallon drums/barrels to make a benthic zone or deep and bed. They cost only $10 used or $50 new, and the flow rate and subsequent equipment cost would stay the same. The other benefit of a large work area is you can greatly increase your system volume. You could use as many drums as you can fit.

5) I use one larger overflow box located at the end of the aquarium. If you direct water across the top toward the overflow, you can constantly surface skim with no dead spots (areas where film develops on surface or food collects). I do a flake food test on new tanks to test my flow dynamics. I add a healthy portion of flake food and monitor where it goes and how long it takes to be surface skimmed. Proper flow will skim almost all of the flakes within 30 seconds, with only a few escaping capture as they sink below the surface. A poorly designed system will leave dead spots or sink most of the flakes. Using one overflow at the end of the tank "down stream" will give you maximum surface tension. Never direct a water return away from the overflow drain. It will cause your surface skimmer to draw water from below the surface. The water near the skimmer box should be still, so it has greater surface tension and skims more surfactants. Once the tank is full of water, play with your flow dynamics (patterns etc.) for a few hours. Make sure you can keep detritus suspended and skimmed so corals can feed and filtration can remove it. These small adjustments are free and make a huge difference on the outcome of your tank.

6) Crushed coral is useful wherever you can fit it. Just rinse it very well.

 

[mr.wilson]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14352463#post14352463 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by JACOXVIII
ok just got my 75 fuge/sump done and up & running

got a new vertex in250 skimmer
my old skimmer is 4=yr old and full of worms sponges and aiptasia

i still have the old skimmer running water threw it
what do you think will happen if i shut it of will i have big problems in the main tank
do i run it till the lower level of the fuge is seeded

I don't think the sudden removal or addition of benthic inverts will have an overwhelming difference on your water quality. I would dump them out into a suitable area in your sump, and keep the old skimmer as an emergency back-up.

Benthic inverts find their place in all systems. I believe they are beneficial, because they don't produce significant allelopathic agents (competitive toxins), and they utilize (reduce & remove) excess organics. The benthic zones (dark areas with modest water flow and detrital settling) of your system also produce live plankton that purify water and feed fish and corals.

The removal of the organisms in your skimmer will slightly increase the organic load of the tank (excess TOC - total organic carbon), but new benthic inverts will fill this niche within weeks.

By providing a suitable site for benthic inverts, we can increase the stability and population of beneficial (water polishing) organisms.

 

[mr.wilson]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14325851#post14325851 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by screwsloose
so in theory it would be better to run a deep sand bed before or after the duplex and not under it or would it matter?

Yes, try to fit it somewhere else. Sand beds have proven to be effective in shallow conditions, and they can still be useful up to 24" deep. A deep sand bed fits in a smaller footprint, and there are many food grade plastic containers on the market that could be located in your drain line between the display and the sump.

You could locate it at after the return pump, on a "T" back to the sump, but it would use more electricity and cause a little extra heat. The benefit would be less detritus in the sand bed.

 

[screwsloose]

the drawing was done on google sketchup 7. thanks for the compliments. if i split the middle foot print of 3x5 into two 3x2.5's and run the duplex tower in front and then a dsb it would be more beneficial then a dsb along the bottom of a 3x5 tower?

 

[mr.wilson]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14323352#post14323352 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by DeathWish302
I've read the entire thread but have a few questions. I'm rebuilding my sump due to detritus build-up in the 'fuge section. My 'fuge is seperate from the main sump 'loop' and is slow flowing (~150-200gph). This has created a detritus trap regardless of the nassarius snails, crabs & worms in the 'fuge. They cannot turn over the sand fast enough. So I have decided to remove the DSB, as it has no where near the activity as the main display. This is apparent by the lack of bubbles forming on the tank walls. The main display has ~2" and has 10 times the activity.

Questions are as follows:

1) If I'm trying to remove the 'detritus trap', why should I not be concerned with the eggcrate section becoming another trap? I know it's been stated some build-up is ok but the amount produced in a normal tank cannot be processed by the small amount of benthic animals in the 2nd zone. Do xenia eat a portion of the detritus?

2) If you were to use xenia in place of the aiptasia, would you not have to light the 'aiptasia zone'? I've never personally kept the 'pest' in my tank, so I'm not familiar with the exact needs. I read in E. Bornemann's coral book that should be kept under intense lighting. Can they survive under a 13W daylight fluorescent flood lamp? If not, I may try putting these in the coast-to-coast overflow and place a serpent star and some crabs in the 'aiptasia zone'.

3) My main sump is filled with sponges and calcareous tube worms right now, so I understand the possible benefit of these creatures. What would you say is the minimum benthic zone size to be advantageous? I will likely have only 10-12" of space (in a 20L) for this zone and plan to have eggcrate every 1". Will this be nearly enough space? The area on top the eggcrate will definitely suit the algae growth.

I'm just questioning this method working with a 20L and a skimmer that takes up about half the sump. The aiptasia I'm not thrilled about, and the xenia scares me if it starts moving quickly. The eggcrate section just seems like a trap for algae fragments and detritus. I question a systems capcbility of processing such a large volume of waste in such a tiny area. Maybe the power of the benthic animals and the xenia/aiptasia/star polyps are more than I realize....

Thanks,
DW302

1) Every system is different. I find that with good circular flow dynamics, you must have a suitable mechanical filter. For some, a sponge in the overflow box is sufficient. I find that these need too much maintenance for my lifestyle. I use 25 micron canister filters (OceanClear, NuClear, or Pentair). Without them, reef tanks look like a snow globe.

It also helps if your filtration system has a settling chamber in the drain system. This is an area where detritus gets an opportunity to settle to the bottom where it can be siphoned out periodically. It could be a chamber where the protein skimmer is located or part of an overflow box. You could add larger aggressive inverts like starfish and crabs to help keep this are clean. Aiptasia or xenia are also good additions, but they require lighting.

The design I use incorporates an aiptasia/xenia/crab/starfish zone in the overflow box and protein skimmer settling zones. The protein skimmer moves incoming water to the refugium zone, so there is little chance of a significant amount of detritus making it through to the benthic zone.

If your refugium isn't set up efficiently, you will produce a significant amount of detritus through macro algae die off. The shallow tray design of the duplex filter doesn't allow dark areas in the refugium, so there is no die off ate the bottom of the macro algae culture. harvesting the bottom portion of the algae also assures old growth is removed and new growth is allowed to flourish.

In the benthic zone, detritus will be present, but only as a light dusting. 95% of all nitrifying bacteria develops on detritus, so it isn't something we need to be completely rid off. You could add a removable eggcrate plate on top of the benthic structure for siphon access, but it isn't necessary. Alternatively, you could blast the area out with a powerhead annually, but once again, it can be avoided by fine tuning your system.

Find out where the detritus is coming from and find a quick and efficient way of removing it.

2) Aiptasia can feed in three different ways (photosynthesis, filter feeding, direct feeding). You will not see aiptasia problems in a reef tank by merely introducing high intensity lighting. They do however show up when the tank is over fed and under filtered. This illustrates that lighting is less of a growth factor than nutrient supply.

Yes, aiptasia require lighting. They would do very well directly under your reef lighting system, but they will prefer the high nutrient overflow box with ambient light that leaks into it.

Aiptasia will not reproduce sexually under a long photoperiod (18-24 hours). They will divide by fission and fill their zone, but they will not spread beyond that. Mechanical barrier and UV irradiation will also keep them from making it to the display tank. Shrimp and butterflies will act as a fail safe. If you are nervous about using them, then by all means pick a more reef-friendly alternative like bubble anemones, xenia, or star polyps.

3) Unfortunately, we have no hard science on the subject with regard to sizing the benthic zone. Steve Tyree created very successful reef systems with only benthic zones (cryptic zones) beneath his rock work in the display. It's quite possible that a much larger area is required to get significant results, but it seems to be more of a matter of quality than quantity of space.

Our goal is to break down detritus (particulate organic carbon or POC), and remove DOC (dissolved organic carbon). By harnessing the power of these opportunistic filter feeders, we can achieve this. Benthic inverts do not require vast amounts of space to populate. As long as they have sites to attach (eggcrate or rock), they will flourish. They can live in close proximity to each other, so there is no point in increasing our standards of benthic zone size, until we reach a limit (over population). In other words, the size of the benthic invert colony is directly proportionate to the nutrient load, not the amount of space.

Once your sump is full of benthic inverts, adding some aggcrate panels will provide them with a solution to their limiting factor (space). Until the eggcrate becomes overpopulated, the limiting factor is nutrient availability.

Most other forms of filtration definitely are limited by space. For example, refugiums will continue to fill with macro algae even if they are exponentially bigger than the display tank. Protein skimmers and UV sterilizers can also be upsized for better performance.

I would focus on using the resources you have to build the best system you can. Adding a benthic zone and making your refugium a shallow tray will increase efficiency at a negligible cost. If you have resources to improve your chemical filtration (protein skimmer, carbon, ion exchange resins), then you can fit these items outside of your 20 liter sump.

It's always the cheap adjustments like flow dynamics, surface skimming, protein skimmer settings, and basic methodology that will get better results. High end equipment is fun to play with, but the value for money isn't always there.

 

[mr.wilson]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14354593#post14354593 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by screwsloose
the drawing was done on google sketchup 7. thanks for the compliments. if i split the middle foot print of 3x5 into two 3x2.5's and run the duplex tower in front and then a dsb it would be more beneficial then a dsb along the bottom of a 3x5 tower?

I find drawing things out to be a great exercise. I always find ways of making things work better (fix my mistakes) if I look at them in every possible way. Putting everything together before gluing the PVC fittings and pipe also gives you one last chance to get it right the first time.

Yes, the DSB needs very little if any maintenance, so it would work well at the back of the sump (two 1 1/2 x 5 sections). The refugium definitely needs room for you to inspect and harvest. Just make sure the sand bed is dark. This is harder to do than you would think.

A narrower (1 1/2 x 5) refugium will give you faster flow through it, and make it easier to assure there are no dead spots. Wide refugiums make it easy for water to channel through one part of the algae bed.

The refugium is a great place to locate new or damaged corals. Leave yourself some room for frags and "experiments". A small eggcrate divider or shelf in the return pump section will prove useful.

 

[TheFishMan65]

Skimming

Skimming

This was a great read. I am sorry no one has posted in so long.

I have one question. Ideally we would like the skimmer to process all the water from the tank at a rate of 3-5 times per hour (is this right?). This is great if the skimmer can be gravity fed. If not, is it better to skim just under the return rate and have some unprocessed water go into the fuge. Or over process and process some water more than once. Maybe the same drop forever And I guess it was two questions.

Okay I reread it and have more skimmer questions. If there is a better thread could you please point me at it. Assuming that I will buy/build a larger skimmer, can the water be fed too slowly? How long should water remain in the skimmer?

Thanks

 

[Borge]

I ought to answer some of these questions of yours, but somehow find myself in doubt of what to write.
I recon everything is ok either way. But, the skimmer really pulls out when things start to rot and the hydrophobic molecules arrives, I somehow really like this to go throught the skimmer first, you see, the name skimmer as in meaning two things.
first you use a overflow to take out these molecules, then you use foam to fraction/skim these molecules from the watercollumn to get rid of them, and these are so easy to get to, they are ripe so to speak, before further breakdown occurs.
As for a couple of freebies (witch can be further accelerated with ozon), you oxidate the water to accelerate breakdown of other nutritients and deteriorate metals, and to top it a gas exchange.

You want to bypass this, witch in it self is ok, but still got some wrongness to me atleast, its the only filter that removes stuff from the water without leaking nutritients back.
but you can do it, its just inefficient. speed, dunno; but the water can remain as long as it takes new water to arrive, witch it should.

 

[mr.wilson]

As Borge states, the protein skimmer is the only filter that removes proteins and TOC (total organic carbon, both dissolved and particulate), without leaching them back into the water. Carbon will leach what it has collected if left in the water too long (over a month), macro-algae leaches nutrients at night and when damaged or decaying, mechanical filters allow bypass/flow through and mineralization, and biological filters leave residual nitrate as a result of mineralization by nitrifying bacteria. Even denitrifying bacteria convert a portion of assimilated/dissimilated nitrate into nitrite and ammonia.

So is protein skimming (foam fractionation) the perfect filtration device? Not really. It does have limitations. Protein skimmers remove 80% of the proteins available and 25% of the TOC. Protein skimmers should be used in conjunction with carbon, which removes the highest amount of TOC of any filtration method, and macro-algae harvesting, which provides the most efficient export of phosphate, nitrate, and heavy metals.

Mechanical filtration is the most overlooked filtration method we have available to us. It's also the cheapest. While I don't subscribe to bare bottom tanks for biological and aesthetic reasons, there is something to be said about the removal of detritus before it enters the nitrogen cycle. Good flow dynamics will keep detritus suspended to give you the same results as found with bare bottom tanks. A simple pleated cartridge filter, filter bag/sock, or sponge can be implemented in the flow of water where it can be easily & frequently rinsed. The easier it is to do, the more likely you are to do it as Martin Moe once said.

Back on track to your question, I would stick with the idea of skimming a thin layer of surfactant rich water from the surface of the aquarium with a well designed overflow box. Direct all of this water through the protein skimmer and have the processed water enter the refugium chamber next so it is only processed once by the protein skimmer. Most manufacturers recommend 3-5 times the volume of the tank for their protein skimmers, so any more flow through the sump is counter productive. Macro-algae utilize phosphate, nitrate and heavy metals that protein skimmers can only remove as secondary compounds. In other words, not very well. Therefore you will not be robbing your refugium of nutrients by processing the water with a protein skimmer first.

Protein skimmers are not very efficient at removing many elements from the water, but they do accomplish what they can without residuals or leakage, so they should get the first shot at processing the incoming water. The design I use implements a return pump that matches the output of the protein skimmer, so the throughput of the tank is equal to that of the protein skimmer. In doing this, one can assure that all of the water entering the first chamber where the protein skimmer is located can be pumped through the protein skimmer and on to the next chamber at the same flow rate.

One of the most common mistakes is to move more water through the sump than the protein skimmer can handle. Even worse is having a set-up where the water in the sump is randomly processed by the protein skimmer indiscriminately. You need a first in first out (FIFO) system to assure all water is treated and done so only once. It's very easy to set-up but also very easy to overlook. People tend to put more resources into what brand they buy, rather than how they set it up to run. I would rather have a discount protein skimmer set up efficiently, than a top of the line protein skimmer just dropped into the sump and plugged in without tuning the throughput volume and order.

It's impossible to over-process/over filter your water. Feed frequently and with premium foods rich in EFA's. Try to encourage the farming of plankton in a refugium or benthic zone sump to supplement and reduce nutrient import through direct feeding.

If you are looking for a good protein skimmer thread look at this one. http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1208815
Most other protein skimmer threads are strictly hype a misinformation by manufacturers and overzealous hobbyists. The protein skimmer tests discussed at the end of the thread illustrate that we need to concentrate more on fine tuning what we have, rather than waiting for the next model to come out.

What was your question again

 

[TheFishMan65]

Skimming Water
Sorry Mr Wilson if I missed your answer. Do you actuallly match the sump flow to the protein skimmer? How can you do this and still have an aiptasia zone? Or is the aiptasia under pressure?

I guess there are four options:
A) Do an exact flow into the protein skimmer that matches the flow of the pump. How do you do this with an aiptasia zone?
B) Send unskimmed water into the refugium zone.
C) Process some water through the protein skimmer more than once.
D) Thought of this one over the week end. Bypass the unskimmed water around the refeguim and into the sump return.
E) It is not known, becuase the duplex idea is too new to have an answer
I realize A is optimal, I just don't see how to do it.

Refegium
Do I have this right? I think there are three areas in this zone: algae, benthic, and a DSB. The algaes zone is the top 4 inches. Below the algae is the bethnic and/or DSB. Any guidelines to tell how much area to devote to the bethnic vs the DSBs?

What kihd of sand should a DSB be made out of: Fine sand, crushed coral, calcium carbonate chicken grit (Yeah, I saw Mr Wilson resoponding in the rock thread. He knows what I am talking about.).

Thanks for your quick responses, I wasgone over the week end or I would have responded earlier. I really am interested. Thanks again.

 

[mr.wilson]

I'll try to answer more concisely. Yes, I match the two pumps if the protein skimmer is fed by a pump, or I drain all of the water directly to the protein skimmer if it is at all possible. An emergency bypass line is necessary if the protein skimmer plugs or can't keep up for some reason.

The purpose of moving the water to the sump is to feed the protein skimmer and other methods/devices/zones. The magic number appears to be 3-5 times the volume of the display tank for each of these zones so we might as well feed them in succession. The water can move from one zone to the next without bypass, as all zones seem to require the same ratio (3-5 x the volume), and are not in direct competition with each other.

Aiptasia do not need pressure, they will locate in the path of the food and will relocate as necessary. If you feel that you need to concentrate the area, you can use a narrowed compartment of dams and weirs.

I usually don't include a DSB in the duplex, or I would call it a triplex If you have the space, you could add a remote DSB at the end of the line just before the water is returned to the display tank. This would be to assure that detritus is settled or separated by the time the water gets there. You also want to keep it dark.

On a side note, I followed the Calfo bucket thread for a long time but never saw any positive result feedback. There were thousands of posts about what kind of bucket and what kind of powerhead etc., but even after asking a few times, not a single person stepped up and said that they experienced lower nitrates after setting it up. This doesn't mean it doesn't work, but it points us in a direction that perhaps we need to make it bigger or somehow better... or we need to start posting more important info instead of pictures of buckets

You got it right with the algae zone. I won't repeat what I've posted many times here about maintaing a healthy live culture of macroalgae with no dark areas where it can die off. The benthic zone is as big as you can fit it. I stacked the two zones to utilize hard to find space under the display tank, but if you can fit a barrel or separate tank, then by all means go for it.
This benthic zone idea is still a theory. I use the system, but haven't done any experiments with a control group to measure its value. If one had a problematic tank and added an established benthic zone it would hopefully lower nitrate and phosphate within a few weeks. If it doesn't do so, it's just another way of farming food for the tank and viewing organisms that live in these dark regions. The research Steve Tyree has done seems to indicate that it works, but as with all results it's shrouded in controversy. Once you start marketing, copyrighting and patenting, things get ugly and it gets harder to separate truth from fiction.

The substrate size question is enough to start a war on any forum. I honestly have no proof or indication of which is best. The experts agree to disagree on that one. I personally think a coarse grade will allow for more flow of water and subsequent nutrients, while others like Dr. Ron Shimek insist that a fine grade is necessary for more surface area. I agree that smaller granules provides more surface area, but opt for quality over quantity in this instance, but I'm only a Mr. not Dr. Most DSB's move water across the surface only, but I don't see how the bacteria in the lower regions can get a constant supply of nutrients. In my opinion, you need some kind of very passive flow, whether it is a drip from a pump, air diffuser with an airlift tube, or thermal transfer, as heat rises from a heat source below such as a ballast or bulb.

I have had a number of aquariums operate with little or no water changes while maintaining zero nitrate and phosphate. I cannot however tell you exactly what the key element is in these systems that makes this true, and I'm not about to start unplugging things to find out There are more and more threads here on RC about chemical dependent systems like the balling method, vitamin C addition, carbon dosing, and zeovit-type systems. many people are happy with this method, but I equate them to massive water changes, and some of them are in fact just that (like the diet that requires you to drink two pints of beer, eat healthy foods and get plenty of exercise, it works). If we can find a biological solution such as algae farming, benthic invertebrate culture - reduction, bivalve filtration, or better utilization of denitrifying bacteria (DSB's) then I think we are on the right path. The problem with chemical dependent systems is it's a juggling act that is hard to keep up with. One day the chemicals will fall out of balance or you will run out of time or resources to dose them, and disaster is eminent.

I summary run everything in succession with 3-5 x the volume of the tank. Make up the rest of your flow with a closed loop system. This system isn't about doing anything new, just fine tuning what we already do. A simple example, wash your bulbs regularly and increase your light intensity by up to 30%, rather than follow hype about a new lighting system that will give you 10% more light.

So much for a concise answer Next time just make it a yes/no question

 

[TheFishMan65]

I thought I did keep the question pretty simple: multiple choice A-E I really do appreciate the thorough answers though it does avoid a lot of questions down the road.

I am reading the thread you pointed to on skimmers, and it may answer this (just haven't gotten there yet). Assuming only a sump return pump and a protein skimmer pump, is it hard to march them. Or is there enough play in 8-10 inches of water that the changing head pressure (more head means it will puimp more to the other end which has less) to make the system farily easy to adjust.

 

[TheFishMan65]

Best air Bubbles

Best air Bubbles

Mr Wilson, I read the thread on protein skimmers that you pointed me at. It was very informative. I am not sure if I should post there or here. I beleive that you said that you were going to build a thread wheel. Did you? What is the best source of bubbles now for a protein skimmer?

FYI: I got into this hobby about 14 years ago and was very active for about 4. I never got into corals, but I would like to and I am trying to figure out what to change/add to get there with current thoughts/opinions/facts (are there any ). Currently a 75 gallone drains over bioballs and then to the sump, the protein skimmer get water from the sump and drain into the bioballs. And there is a return pump from sump to tank. Four T8s (6500k) on an IceCap. I am looking for a used 30 gallong tank for a new sump, and looking for a new lighting source either LED or T5s probably. Did I mention on a minimal budget!

I am trying to read all I can find, but there is too much. I have seen you name in enough threads (and no one has said anything bad about you) that I really value your opinion.

Thanks

 

[mr.wilson]

Re: Best air Bubbles

Re: Best air Bubbles

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15624264#post15624264 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TheFishMan65
Mr Wilson, I read the thread on protein skimmers that you pointed me at. It was very informative. I am not sure if I should post there or here. I beleive that you said that you were going to build a thread wheel. Did you? What is the best source of bubbles now for a protein skimmer?

FYI: I got into this hobby about 14 years ago and was very active for about 4. I never got into corals, but I would like to and I am trying to figure out what to change/add to get there with current thoughts/opinions/facts (are there any ). Currently a 75 gallone drains over bioballs and then to the sump, the protein skimmer get water from the sump and drain into the bioballs. And there is a return pump from sump to tank. Four T8s (6500k) on an IceCap. I am looking for a used 30 gallong tank for a new sump, and looking for a new lighting source either LED or T5s probably. Did I mention on a minimal budget!

I am trying to read all I can find, but there is too much. I have seen you name in enough threads (and no one has said anything bad about you) that I really value your opinion.

Thanks

I would post in the protein skimmer thread, it will keep a good thread going and you will get more answers from very knowledgeable sources. It wasn't me with the idea of building a thread wheel, as I don't even know what one is?

I haven't had time to play with one lately, but in theory I still think air driven (wood air diffuser) protein skimmers are the most efficient and economical. There is lots of info on bubble size of air driven skimmers in Dr. Peter Escobal's, and Dr. Stephen Spotte's books. Off the top of my head, I think they generate < 0.8mm dia. bubbles. I just did a search, and according to Lee (manufacturer of wood air diffusers) they produce 0.5-1.0mm dia. bubbles. Protein skimmer manufacturers are high on hype and low on science, so I doubt you will get any hard numbers from them. They either don't care to know, or they know and don't want to publish the numbers.

In my opinion, we are spending too many resources developing venturi and other water pump driven fractionators and not enough (or any) effort in developing better air diffusers. Here's an example of the direction we should be going, even though the term "awesome" is used in the introductory sentence http://www.hawkfish.org/snailman/kwairstone.htm

It sounds like your current system is great for fish, but needs some fine tuning for corals. take a look at the newer LED DIY threads. I don't know about price, but the quality has improved by leaps and bounds. Personally, I use MHL for cost and efficiency. I use 14,000K Phoenix or 20,000K Aqua-Medic bulbs with no actinics in most cases.

Once I get my post count up there, maybe people will get a chance to know me better and start saying bad things about me

 

[Ellie2103]

Mr. Wilson
Do you have diagrams of the duplex sysytem. I am new in this. It looks interesting. Please send me informations and diagrams and type of skimer I nned to use.

Thanks

Herbert

 

[mr.wilson]

I'm pretty sure I posted it earlier, but here's a basic guideline.

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=2193

Sorry, I can't get the photo Gallery to work with my browser properly. Maybe this works???

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/album.php?albumid=398&pictureid=2193