Loudz34
New member
Pm me and we can chat... or email me.. Loudz34@aol.com
thanks.. Greg
thanks.. Greg
Reef-Rat Update
- Thread starter ReefVan
- Start date
ReefVan
New member
Today was an interesting day at the Rat Werks. 
Kept on thinking about those damn acrylic tanks and the whopping 3" hole I'd need to insert a Rat, then after a few hours of tinkering, I came up with a Rat with detachable Jet-Nozzle / Drive Assembly.
The entire business end of the Rat detaches with 3 nylon screws and indexes perfectly on re-assembly.
Now all you need is a 1 5/8" hole for the main feed pipe and a 7/16" hole for the Drive-Shaft.
Pics to follow when the rest of the unit is complete. :dance: :dance: :dance:
Van
Lunchbucket
Premium Member
you are the MASTER of DIY!!!
Lunchbucket
Lunchbucket
Toutouche
Premium Member
Van,
Here's a new idea I just thought up after going over what we discussed the last time I was at your place.
This one might REALLY get you racking that little brain of yours!!!! How about making that drive rod completely dissapear by placing it internally in the flow tube??!!! Since you already have that piece of bracing that attaches the rod to the nozzle, just manipulate it so that it would fit freely on the inside!!
... C'MON... I KNOW YOU CAN DO IT!!!! It's not "THAT" crazy if you give it some thought!!
Here's a new idea I just thought up after going over what we discussed the last time I was at your place.
This one might REALLY get you racking that little brain of yours!!!! How about making that drive rod completely dissapear by placing it internally in the flow tube??!!! Since you already have that piece of bracing that attaches the rod to the nozzle, just manipulate it so that it would fit freely on the inside!!
... C'MON... I KNOW YOU CAN DO IT!!!! It's not "THAT" crazy if you give it some thought!!
ReefVan
New member
Gregt,That all depends on the Sea-Swirl that you wish to install.
I believe that the 1" model, which has the same sch40 plumbing as the Rat, requires a 1 3/8" diameter hole.
This smaller hole would be due to the fact that the inner pipe, which rotates, is the item which passes directly thru the acrylic.
The Rat has no rotating pipe, therefore the sch40 coupling section under the base of the Rat is the 1 5/8" diameter requirement for the hole.
Van
ReefVan
New member
Toutouche,The problem is not outside the box, it's inside.
In order to have the drive-shaft inside the main feed pipe will require all sorts of seals or O-rings in the box where electricity and water don't mix.
I'm trying to stay away from that sort of complexity and maintenance, it's only one more thing to break, wear out or leak saltwater all over the floor.
You'll have to explain it to me again next time we talk, I'm perhaps missing something.
Van
Toutouche
Premium Member
Van,
Yeah, but think of the mindboggling tweaks that would have to be done... C'mon... doesn't it make ya itch just to try and build a "working" prototype like this?? Afterall, it's a pretty good DIY project, no??
Gregt,
The reason I said this is because I was at Van's house the otherday and we were talking about some ReefRats for my upcoming setup, and I am a bit anal about having things sticking out into the tank when my setup is viewed from both sides in the wall. When you look right through it, things tend to be a bit more noticeable when they are sticking out into the water column. For this reason, Van has come up with the new revision where he cut the elbow and moved the driving rod back a bit. Of course, I will always say it has to go back "more".
Yeah, but think of the mindboggling tweaks that would have to be done... C'mon... doesn't it make ya itch just to try and build a "working" prototype like this?? Afterall, it's a pretty good DIY project, no??
Gregt,
The reason I said this is because I was at Van's house the otherday and we were talking about some ReefRats for my upcoming setup, and I am a bit anal about having things sticking out into the tank when my setup is viewed from both sides in the wall. When you look right through it, things tend to be a bit more noticeable when they are sticking out into the water column. For this reason, Van has come up with the new revision where he cut the elbow and moved the driving rod back a bit. Of course, I will always say it has to go back "more".
kstockman
New member
Toutouche--
Here is a nice way to have clean lines. Have all the water outputs go through bulkhead fittings on the sides of the tank. Then use the version that I came up with and have them attach to the bulkheads.
Even easier--if you have a 1" hole, then extend off the bulkhead about 1" with pipe. Then just use a 1.5" coupling fitting connected up to the motor assembly. The coupling fitting does not even have to be connected to anything if you make the pivot in the correct place. In the end the only thing that you see is a coupling fitting in the tank with a piece connecting it up to the motor shaft. Can't get any cleaner than that. You could do two at either end of the tank. Connecting two up to one motor.
Make sense?
Here is a nice way to have clean lines. Have all the water outputs go through bulkhead fittings on the sides of the tank. Then use the version that I came up with and have them attach to the bulkheads.
Even easier--if you have a 1" hole, then extend off the bulkhead about 1" with pipe. Then just use a 1.5" coupling fitting connected up to the motor assembly. The coupling fitting does not even have to be connected to anything if you make the pivot in the correct place. In the end the only thing that you see is a coupling fitting in the tank with a piece connecting it up to the motor shaft. Can't get any cleaner than that. You could do two at either end of the tank. Connecting two up to one motor.
Make sense?
ReefVan
New member
Ken,Talk about coincidence, I was on your website checking out the Stockman Overflow Mod for my 2 standpipes on my 220gal, you were here posting on the Rat Update thread.
Toutouche,
Looks like you're gonna have to stick to those 1" Sea-Swirls for a while yet.
I'm starting to organize this 220 gal effort and get all the plumbing prepared, overflows, valves, unions, Rats, etc.
All the plumbing has to be bought and pre-fitted and assembled before I even dare think about moving that monster into the house.
Ken's idea could work for you as well. Get your new tank drilled at both ends as well as in the bottom...
C'mon it'll be an adventure...
"Yeah, but think of the mindboggling tweaks that would have to be done to your whole plumbing design".
Van
BRILLIANT!!!!!kstockman said:
This would also:
1. Keep water away from the electrical and mechanical components,
2. Reduce the number of pipe fittings and simplify the water path, thereby inproving flow,
3. Be ideal for installation on acrylic tanks.
How about one more leap?
Why not supercharge it by adding the flow multiplier benefits of an eductor? Mount the injector to the fixed bulkheard fitting and use the venturi for the oscilating nozzle? Add a pressure rated pump and stand back.
I think i'd be inclined to use separate motors for each nozzle. Then you'd still have oscillation if one failed. I think the currents would also be more random since no to motors are ever completely synchronus.
Toutouche
Premium Member
Ken,
Interesting idea!! I'll have to think about this one.
The only thing that needs addressing on this would be the following. If I do drill and place a bulkhead in the wall, then screw in a fitting with the oscillating nozzle, the driving rod that goes up would have to be detacheable for removal of the nozzle periodicly for cleaning and such. On initial setup, it wouldn't be a problem with the lines not yet installed nor water in the tank but once everything is setup, and the rod not removeable, there would be no way of detaching the nozzle from the bulkhead without unscrewing it. I hope I explained this right..., make sense????
Van,
I thought you said you were going to wait for you know what to setup the 220 in a new place??!! Things have changed?? You're setting it up in the existing place??
Interesting idea!! I'll have to think about this one.
The only thing that needs addressing on this would be the following. If I do drill and place a bulkhead in the wall, then screw in a fitting with the oscillating nozzle, the driving rod that goes up would have to be detacheable for removal of the nozzle periodicly for cleaning and such. On initial setup, it wouldn't be a problem with the lines not yet installed nor water in the tank but once everything is setup, and the rod not removeable, there would be no way of detaching the nozzle from the bulkhead without unscrewing it. I hope I explained this right..., make sense????
Van,
I thought you said you were going to wait for you know what to setup the 220 in a new place??!! Things have changed?? You're setting it up in the existing place??
Last edited:
ReefVan
New member
Greg,No problem plumbing those returns for Rats. I'll just use the detachable rods I'm developing for the acrylic tanks.
It'll look great! One word of caution to all those plumbing their Rats to a return, especially a DW Rat or modified Sea-Swirl with extended pipe...
In case of a power failure, the pipe depth will become a great siphon if it isn't drilled just below the water level in the main tank...
Major flooding will occur when the sump overflows.This does not apply to Rats or Sea-Swirls on a closed loop...
Van
kstockman
New member
I was not planning on having the oscillating nozzle actually attached the the bulkhead. The nozzle was just going to be around the 1" pipe.
Let me explain better. Have a piece of 1" pipe sticking out of bulkhead about 1-2". The nozzle will be 1.5" and will placed such that the 1" pipe sticks into the 1.5" fitting about 1". This will allow enough room for the nozzle to rotate without cutting it (I think). A rod will then go up from the nozzle to the motor housing.
I have not really thought the detachable portion of it. One option is to use a jointed rotating joint (used to connect the wheels of an R/C car to the drive shaft). Have the flexible joint surrounded by a sliding plastic piece. Slide the plastic piece into place during operation, then slide it up to expose the flexible joint when you want to clean it. The joint will allow you to rise the nozzle out of the water for cleaning.
Alternatively, it sounds like Van has a way to detach them.
Let us know what you decide to do. I think that everyone would like to see them in operation regardless.
Let me explain better. Have a piece of 1" pipe sticking out of bulkhead about 1-2". The nozzle will be 1.5" and will placed such that the 1" pipe sticks into the 1.5" fitting about 1". This will allow enough room for the nozzle to rotate without cutting it (I think). A rod will then go up from the nozzle to the motor housing.
I have not really thought the detachable portion of it. One option is to use a jointed rotating joint (used to connect the wheels of an R/C car to the drive shaft). Have the flexible joint surrounded by a sliding plastic piece. Slide the plastic piece into place during operation, then slide it up to expose the flexible joint when you want to clean it. The joint will allow you to rise the nozzle out of the water for cleaning.
Alternatively, it sounds like Van has a way to detach them.
Let us know what you decide to do. I think that everyone would like to see them in operation regardless.
Toutouche
Premium Member
Ken,
Your idea is interesting indeed. I understand better what you mean now.The problem of the rod bending though will have to be addressed. I think the water leaving the pipe will most likely push somewhat on the nozzle causing it to move forward and cause some bending of the rod. A stiffer rod will have to be used as this will most likely through off how you aim the nozzle. This is definitely a problem that needs rectifying if I go this route.
In all honesty, I am playing around with either the idea of what's being discussed here, or using 2 Tunze Streams. I WOULD prefer not drilling the tank either for closed loops. I know there is also a price difference, but each option has it's pros & cons.
Your idea is interesting indeed. I understand better what you mean now.The problem of the rod bending though will have to be addressed. I think the water leaving the pipe will most likely push somewhat on the nozzle causing it to move forward and cause some bending of the rod. A stiffer rod will have to be used as this will most likely through off how you aim the nozzle. This is definitely a problem that needs rectifying if I go this route.
In all honesty, I am playing around with either the idea of what's being discussed here, or using 2 Tunze Streams. I WOULD prefer not drilling the tank either for closed loops. I know there is also a price difference, but each option has it's pros & cons.
ReefVan
New member
quote by kstockman:
The Jet-Nozzle should be 1.25" diameter and it will swivel upon a 1" coupling seal ring mounted on the 1" pipe.
Any larger Jet-Nozzle than 1.25" will not allow for an effective seal with the 1" coupling seal ring.
With a bigger Jet-Nozzle the loss occurs as it swivels, thereby allowing a backwash of pressurized water to escape through the rear of the Jet-Nozzle through the excess space.
The cutouts will be required on both sides to allow for full sweep of 90 degrees and no interference with the seal ring on the i.d of the Jet-Nozzle.
I would suggest a back and forth swivel motion only, greatly simplifying the assembly and design.
A twisting motion will be the only force imparted on the drive-shaft, thereby eliminating any special jointed shaft assembly.
Remember Murphy's Law and keep it simple...
Van
The Jet-Nozzle should be 1.25" diameter and it will swivel upon a 1" coupling seal ring mounted on the 1" pipe.
Any larger Jet-Nozzle than 1.25" will not allow for an effective seal with the 1" coupling seal ring.
With a bigger Jet-Nozzle the loss occurs as it swivels, thereby allowing a backwash of pressurized water to escape through the rear of the Jet-Nozzle through the excess space.
The cutouts will be required on both sides to allow for full sweep of 90 degrees and no interference with the seal ring on the i.d of the Jet-Nozzle.
I would suggest a back and forth swivel motion only, greatly simplifying the assembly and design.
A twisting motion will be the only force imparted on the drive-shaft, thereby eliminating any special jointed shaft assembly.
Remember Murphy's Law and keep it simple...
Van
kstockman
New member
here are a few pictures of my idea.
The first one is the nozzle and the bulkhead. The pipe end would be sticking into the tank. The nozzle would free swing down at this point. I have not connected anything on to stop the up-down motion. Ideally I would use a 1.5" coupling fitting and not a 2" to 1.5" reducer--it is just what I have around the house.
The first one is the nozzle and the bulkhead. The pipe end would be sticking into the tank. The nozzle would free swing down at this point. I have not connected anything on to stop the up-down motion. Ideally I would use a 1.5" coupling fitting and not a 2" to 1.5" reducer--it is just what I have around the house.
Attachments
Similar threads
