Duplex sump concept
- Thread starter Indermark
- Start date
mr.wilson
.Registered Member
Shawn, I think we all lost our RC galleries in the upgradeUnless I am mistaken??
Yeah, mine is gone and I can't copy the BB code to paste photos from the gallery. The code also doesn't link to the images for some reason. I fad to copy the link from my browser. It works but it isn't pretty. Some images and banners don't show up for me on my laptop, but they work on my tower and phone?? Same browser and version.
I miss the little red houses. I loved those little bastards :hmm5:
mr.wilson
.Registered Member
The low flow is a result of evolution. The organisms we are looking at here live on the bottom (benthos) where there is much less flow/current. You will notice that many of these benthic organisms are only found in dark areas with less flow, under rock overhangs for example.
I'm sure may benthic inverts would or do adapt to higher flow rates, but keeping them in the dark is critical as they can't compete with photosynthetic organisms and many are not tolerant to full light.
I don't see a problem with a vertical chamber, such as a dam & weir system. If the dam & weir network is wide and or long, the volume of water can be high without the pressure being high. You could use eggcrate screens that could be removed for vacuuming detritus. Your idea is a good way of assuring that the water flows evenly through the benthic zone, giving an equal opportunity for filter feeders.
I think you would find in time that the first screens would become more heavily populated due to the availability of food. You could rotate the screens to help populate the rest of the benthic zone (farther down the line). It would also discourage overgrowth without having to export/harvest the screens.
One possible shortcoming of the duplex system is that the eggcrate gets only passive water flow. It isn't known at this point in time if this is to its aid or detriment. Water tests and measuring benthic invert growth is a good indication of efficiency.
I am going to be constructing a multi-chambered series of sumps and experiment with different filter philosophies in each. The goal is to replicate a plenum, a benthic region, a protein skimming sector, and then chemical polishing at the end. I intend to do much testing and see which works better for variously stocked aquarium conditions so that we can get some hard data on the subject.
Having them separate should make it able to produce some results on 'this vs that' questions.
Having them separate should make it able to produce some results on 'this vs that' questions.
DeathWish302
Clown Hoarder
I like the duplex concept Shawn has 'pioneered'. When I build the new system it will definitely incorporate a dedicated benthic zone in a completely seperate aquarium. What I found was I couldn't get macros to grow and the only life in my sump is the bristleworm breeding grounds. I took the eggcrate out, quite vacuuming the detritus and inserted a turf scrubber in place of the macros. I have the opposite problem of everyone trying the duplex concept. My water is too clean for the sps and they have suffered due to this. I've even started dosing potassium nitrate to get more nitrate into the system on top of feeding 4x heavier than I did 2-3 months ago.
Here's mine. It's a year old now and the life is really growing in there.
mr.wilson
.Registered Member
Most hardware stores carry it under the name "eggcrate". It's used to diffuse light in fluorescent light fixtures.
mr.wilson
.Registered Member
Thanks for sharing your opinion. This thread has offered lots of reasons why it may or may not work. Your post would be of more use if you offered why you think it won't work.
mr.wilson
.Registered Member
Yes, UV sterilizers will adversely affect pods, but so will mechanical filters, media reactors, protein skimmers, ozone, and pumps. UV sterilizers are more efficient at killing smaller organisms. In order for pods to be killed or damaged in a UV unit they need to first get into it. Pods don't migrate from a refugium to the display tank readily. They scurry in and around rocks and algae, but they don't get sucked up in pump intakes as often as many people think. Even if a few pods die in transit to the display tank, they are still viable fish & coral food. The best way to add pods is to shake it in the display tank when you do your weekly harvest.
mr.wilson
.Registered Member
That's a short question that requires a long answer. Some people argue that the efficiency of a protein skimmer isn't a significant factor with respect to overall water quality. A "good" protein skimmer will constantly remove 80% of the proteins in the water. A less efficient protein skimmer will remove the same proteins (80%), but at a slower rate. The problem with cheap protein skimmers is they often require more adjusting and in some cases they fall apart or leak. For this reason, they should be located in the sump.
Some argue that it's important to remove these proteins immediately as they develop, while others view these proteins as potential food items for livestock. One man's protein pollution is another man's protein food. Proteins feed the nitrogen cycle as well as the phosphate cycle.
Plumbing the protein skimmer the way I have illustrated in the Duplex drawing with the effluent (out) skimmed water directed to a second chamber so it doesn't get processed more than once. This small modification can make a cheap skimmer on a level playing field with an expensive one.
Anything with a cone shaped body, and an efficient pump will work well. The main aspect in a good design is the pump. Red Dragon, and Aqua-bee are two good pumps to look for.
The other questions you have asked have been covered elsewhere in this thread.
DeathWish302
Clown Hoarder
huh.... once again....
Why don't you drive up and take a look at mine. Works perfect! What's your system run on.... (Chirp...chirp)
Useless banter doesn't help new concepts. 'Absurd' ideas end up the norm in many cases. I applaud your dedication to this style of system Shawn. Some people don't get there are many successful ways to maintain these glass money pits and only assume their way is 'The Way'. I tried your concept and it didn't work out for my system but I found one that did. Geez....sorry for the rant.:hmm3:
mr.wilson
.Registered Member
Thanks DeathWish. The problem with these long threads, is a lot of technical details get lost in the general conversations. It's too bad the forum doesn't have a highlighter to mark posts that are particularly helpful. The posts that are not helpful certainly stand out though
I have been experimenting with this system for a number of years now, with the hopes to prove or disprove its merit. Its very hard to prove that something works with so many variables in a reef system. It's a lot easier to discover that something doesn't work, but I have yet to do so with the Duplex system.
There isn't any one form of technology or methodology that can do everything you want, nor should there be. Protein skimmers are a great tool and I value their merits, but quickly see their defaults. I like the duplex system because it incorporates a number of simple, cost effective approaches in a small footprint.
1) The protein skimmer uses an "in & out box". Water is "first in first out" (FIFO). Freshly drained display water is staged in a partitioned area moved along to the second chamber via the protein skimmer. Most protein skimmers have a magic number of 1.33 x the volume of the tank for turnover. If you match the return pump from the sump to the feed pump of your skimmer, you can feed the second half of the duplex sump with via your protein skimmer. Alternatively to you run your display drain directly through your protein skimmer with an emergency/excess bypass to part two of your sump. This simple plumbing modification will trap detritus in the first compartment and insure it all goes through the protein skimmer, and only does so once before moving on to the next zone of your duplex. Since the partition and protein skimmer are physical barriers for aiptasia, it's a good place to keep them to assure they don't make it into the display. If you are nervous about keeping them there, substitute for mojano, or add some lighting and keep xenia there. Xenia are a very efficient nutrient exporter. Just make sure you don't grow algae in your protein skimmer.
2) A shallow mat of chaetomorpha or caulerpa grows much faster and more stable than a ball. Light penetration is exponentially better and there are no dead spots at the bottom where old growth slowly breaks down and pollutes the water. With the shallow tray you gain some real estate below for non-photosynthetic invertebrates. Water passes over and through all of the algae, so nutrients are concentrated. If anyone doubts that non-photosynthetic benthic inverts will further assimilate organic matter, then they can use live rock instead of eggcrate and focus more on fostering the growth of denitrifying bacteria. The idea of all anaerobic bacteria being nitrate consumers, and all aerobic bacteria being ammonia and nitrite consumers is false. Many aerobic bacteria consume nitrate, and many anaerobic bacteria produce nitrite and nitrate. In my opinion, real estate isn't the limiting factor of denitrification by bacteria. A sand bed in the tank and at least one pound per gallon of rock in the display is enough to meet these requirements. Some argue that denitrifiers are not limited by carbon, but the addition of a carbon source such as vodka has certainly given many people tangible results. Eric Borneman covers the topic well in this article http://www.reefkeeping.com/issues/2004-11/eb/feature/index.php
3) Non-photosynthetic benthic invertebrates offer a greater biodiversity in your system. many of these organisms consume nutrients that would otherwise feed nuisance algae in the display tank. While some directly remove nitrate and phosphate, others do so through microbes that live within their tissue. A small handful of sponges are toxic, but no more so than the colonial polyps, mushrooms, and algae currently in the tank. None of these benthic inverts can be considered parasitic, and I would argue that they do not increase bioload significantly as they are opportunistic feeders, utilizing excess food that the display tank isn't using. Nature doesn't like empty spaces. You build an empty space in your sump and these benthic inverts naturally appear. If you added light, algae wold naturally appear. We already have a photosynthetic refugium above, why not increase biodiversity with a non-photosynthetic refugium below? We are only adding eggcrate as a site, no extra feeding, heat, energy, or other resources expended. These zones have always existed n our tanks, and have only been limited by space. The experiment is to remove that limitation and see what happens. So far there have been no reports of parasitic/pathogenic episodes, crashes, oxygen depletion, or increase in nutrients or TOC (dissolved & particulate organic carbon). The only negative reports I have heard from people who have tried the system is a build-up of detritus which is often attributed to mismanagement of the shallow tray above where the algae grows (allowing it to overgrow or making the water or algae mass too deep), or not using the settling chamber for mechanical filtration (aiptasia, floss, & settling). The criticism from people who have not tried the system has been limited to "it won't work", and "benthic inverts will add to the bioload and should be treated the same as corals in the display". While this is true in many respects, non-photosynthetic benthic inverts (can I say NPBI?) are niche opportunistic feeders that would not populate the tank if they were limited by nutrients. I would deem them as competitors to display organisms only if they required more nutrient import (feeding) to sustain, but they don't. The benthic zone promotes higher pod populations and greater biodiversity for a naturalized system.
Similar threads
