What are you talking about Randall?
I did not "advocate" 50X flow through the overlflow. I mentioned OPTIONS regarding the setup of an overflow.
I ALSO SAID that I tend to PREFER "higher flow sumps" as part of my methodology.
To be 100% clear:
I prefer VERY LARGE "SUMPS" with LR that are as big, or bigger than the display. They need a significant flow to do their job. I prefer that the bulk of the equipment be connected to the sump as well. Though there is SOME loss of flow with a larger return pump, it is not that much worse than a closed loop. I do not like powerheads, streams or other "wave makers" in the tank, they are UGLY and out of place, esp in smaller systems where they can not be hidden.
But now that you ask... a 6' long 120 gallon tank with a coast to coast overflow would easily handle 50x flow without going over the trim. EASILY. No need for anadjustable gate and it would still have much better surface skimming than almost any tank with a little square overflow box.
So I am clear:
It would not be IDEAL with regard to surface skimming but would be manageble if there were not enough bulkheads to plumb the closed loop intakes (part of the point in the other thread).
SO no Randall... I have taken a solid stance

You have just taken thoughts fully out of context.
Now you are back to "no slots, it dilutes the skimmed water" So is the sky blue or isn't it? If I say yes, you will say no?
Heh? I am not "back to anything". NO MATTER WHAT THE FLOW RATE, why put teeth into to further reduce the surface skimming? Once again, your not looking at this from the big picture. The SLOTS or NO SLOTS arguement has nothing to do with the turnover... no slots provides better surface skimming in any flow situation.
Your really twisting here randall... This is getting silly.
You started this one out without even really reading the thread first before starting the debate....
What does that have to do with anything? We are, well where we are.
I could have said "basketball is a stupid sport" and if you responded, then the conversation would be ABOUT what I said, not the parent topic.
This is ABOUT what I said and your reasoning as to why I would be wrong, and now about my "solid stance". In either case, I don't think you understand.
That is certainly fine... lets just move on to the next thread. I honestly don't want to fight about something so silly.
Enjoy.