Refugium question about the flow

[TimmyD16]

I totally agree that all methods require more diligence than most aquarium keepers give them... but what it comes down to is how clean of water you are putting back into your display... and if you have your water take the time to be scrubbed and washed clean, you will be putting crystal clear water back into your tank... or if you push water through at 10x or more, you're putting only partially cleaned water back, what is the point in that?

fwiw, my sump goes...

DT->UV->Socks->Skimmer->fuge w/ DSB & choice macros that fish can eat->DT @3x

I get crystal clear water free of contaminants, free of nutrients, full of pods... I love my setup and will go no other route in the future...

 

[uncleof6]

Unfortunately, none of the biological processes work the way you seem to believe they do. There is only one place in the system that dwell time is of concern: That is within the body of the skimmer. The rest is just mythology, with no scientific evidence to support it, and biology disagrees with it. Flow rate through particular reactors, also have efficiency curves associated with the media/flow rate. However again, these are not related to flow rate through the system as a whole, rather the reactor itself.

 

[picker]

> only one place in the system that dwell time is of concern: That is within the body of the skimmer.

I'd also put the UV in there, all UV systems have a max flow rate which is closely related to dwell time.

Its fun to debate, and there are may ways to solve a given problem. The challenge both side face is reality, weather that's biology or does "process X" get run every day.

Tim's system has very little "do process X every day" and should work just fine if his input to the system is balanced with his 3x turnover filtering rate.

I'm gathering "opinions" on detritus collection, like if we know socks and bio-balls speed detritus conversion to dissolved organics perhaps a slow flow settling zone would provide more leeway on "process X"? or should we let it goto dissolved organics and fully automate the water changes? or an automated "process X" with something like PowerRoll Filter E200?

hmm, I don't know..

 

[uncleof6]

> only one place in the system that dwell time is of concern: That is within the body of the skimmer.

I'd also put the UV in there, all UV systems have a max flow rate which is closely related to dwell time.

Most don't run a UV on a reef tank there is little point to it.

Its fun to debate, and there are may ways to solve a given problem. The challenge both side face is reality, weather that's biology or does "process X" get run every day.

It is not fun to debate. Since most of the time, there are sound established sciences behind the basic topics, either chemistry, biology, or physics, or all three, the debate centers around one side not knowing or understanding the science, and with that lack of understanding/knowledge pushes a point of view, that is an invention, myth, hype, or just a complete misapplication of the science in the first place.

Tim's system has very little "do process X every day" and should work just fine if his input to the system is balanced with his 3x turnover filtering rate.

If the system in question is truly free of nutrients, or even just a ultra low nutrient system, life would not exist in it. An ULNS is a virtual desert, with very low production. A reef tank is a high nutrient high production ecosystem.

I'm gathering "opinions" on detritus collection, like if we know socks and bio-balls speed detritus conversion to dissolved organics perhaps a slow flow settling zone would provide more leeway on "process X"? or should we let it goto dissolved organics and fully automate the water changes? or an automated "process X" with something like PowerRoll Filter E200?

hmm, I don't know..

All I am going to say about this photo, is there is enough marketing gimmickry going on, to make it unworthy of discussion.

 

[TimmyD16]

Evidence

Evidence

Do you think that you could give some examples of this science and biology that you so often are referring to? just to set things straight for the reefing world? I would love to read articles on these subjects...

 

[uncleof6]

The biology has been gone over time and again. I have it posted in numerous threads, as well as this one. It is not so hard to understand.

 

[jmpreef]

Most don't run a UV on a reef tank there is little point to it.

It is not fun to debate. Since most of the time, there are sound established sciences behind the basic topics, either chemistry, biology, or physics, or all three, the debate centers around one side not knowing or understanding the science, and with that lack of understanding/knowledge pushes a point of view, that is an invention, myth, hype, or just a complete misapplication of the science in the first place.

If the system in question is truly free of nutrients, or even just a ultra low nutrient system, life would not exist in it. An ULNS is a virtual desert, with very low production. A reef tank is a high nutrient high production ecosystem.

All I am going to say about this photo, is there is enough marketing gimmickry going on, to make it unworthy of discussion.

I'm all for establishing facts and thinking outside of popular opinion. This weekend, I plan on building my 20L sump for my 40 Breeder DT. I've searched countless threads and this thread seems to squash many theories. If 2/3rds of my small sump's area is skimmer and return area, then whats the best usage of the final 3rd? If I could use it as a place for make-up water and ATO circuit, it would certainly be a cleaner build in both style and function. I would like to have everything inside the stand. If adding another square foot of sand has little effect,(DT will take care of that) and macros dont really do all that much if one runs a skimmer and GFO/carbon reactor....then a water tank area would be a huge help. Is it a valid option? In fact, why not put a bit of cheato in the C2C overflow? Take advantage of the lights and get two functions from the large 36x4x3 area ?
I also read a thread where some are questioning the whole live rock concept. Starting with dry rock means you will have nothing alive except for the corals/fish you choose to put in. Is it time to question the concept?

 

[TimmyD16]

The biology has not been gone over time and again, especially by you... post some articles... prove me wrong...

You've said yourself that flow rate through reactors effects efficiency, what would make biological filtration through a reactor ANY different than that of a fuge? You talk about how organics are the number one problem in a reef tank, yet you say that there should be no place with low enough flow for them to settle? how would you export them? How can you clean your tank when everything is always suspended? Skimmers aren't 100% effective, but sucking them out of a hose is...

 

[uncleof6]

The biology has not been gone over time and again, especially by you... post some articles... prove me wrong...

Algae utilize only the amount of nutrients they need. How much algae will grow, and how well, depends on the concentration of nutrients available. If there are no nutrients, no algae will grow. If there are "tons" of nutrients, "tons" of algae will grow. If your macro grows really well you have a high nutrient/high productivity system, if it is nutrient free, you have an ultra low nutrient system, and nothing will grow.....even that which you want. It does not matter what the speed of the flow is. It is really simple, if you stop and think about it.

How many times do I need to explain it? Sorry it is not for me to prove it. Read a book, Marine Biology 100 level, deals mostly with algae, would be my suggestion.

You've said yourself that flow rate through reactors effects efficiency, what would make biological filtration through a reactor ANY different than that of a fuge?

I said "some types of reactors" A skimmer is one, UV is one, as someone offered; a coil denitrator is another. With the UV, the exposure time/emitted energy have to be right in order to kill. With the coil denitrator, water has to move at precisely the right speed, so the oxygen will be depleted sufficiently for denitrification to occur.

The skimmer performance is also a matter of concentration, the higher the concentration the better it works, the lower the concentration the less it does. So the more often the same parcel of water is processed, the lower the skimmer performance will be. Dwell time is directly related to the attachment of the organic molecules to the "air bubbles." A function of surface area/time. How much will be removed is a question of concentration and type of dissolved organic. Recirculating skimmers attempt to improve performance, by recirculating the "same parcel of water." loosely put. They are actually less efficient.

Reactors are not widely utilized for biological filtration any longer that I am aware of. Decomposition of organic matter by bacterial activity, (biological filtration) takes place on all surfaces/substrates, whether "marine" or terrestrial.

What is used in the "fuge" is not biological filtration, per se. It is photosynthesis: The utilization of water, carbon dioxide in the presence of light energy to form simple sugars. Other INORGANIC compounds are utilized for the formulation of amino acids, and other organic compounds. It is "reverse biological filtration," if one must label such things. Biological filtration = reduction of organic to inorganic, or better put decomposition. That is what makes it different. Autotrophic vs Heterotrophic. (Strictly speaking of macro algae.)

You talk about how organics are the number one problem in a reef tank, yet you say that there should be no place with low enough flow for them to settle? how would you export them? How can you clean your tank when everything is always suspended? Skimmers aren't 100% effective, but sucking them out of a hose is...

They are, in fact, the biggest problem. Slow flow will not get rid of dissolved organics--no matter what you do. They cannot be removed by settling or mechanical filtration (with a small proviso--protein skimming is mechanical filtration.) Carbon will remove some compounds but again, that is physical/absorption rather than biological. A DSB will take biological filtration, better known as "The Nitrogen Cycle," From dissolved organics to free nitrogen. The only method that will, that actually works as advertised. It will not process particulate organics and fecal matter. ("Living Sand Bed" comes in here.)

When speaking of "settling" we are talking about detritus, which is partially decomposed organic matter and fecal matter. It is not dissolved organics. IT IS A FOOD SOURCE. It is not the problem it is made out to be, unless it is collected, or settles out, where it decomposes further, becoming dissolved organics--it therefore, becomes a maintenance issue.
That is fine, as long as you accept the responsibility for the maintenance. Detritus does not make a tank dirty, unsightly to some, natural to others. What makes a tank dirty are dissolved organics.

All of these things are cumulative, not instant. It is the cumulative effect that is wanted. The flow rate has nothing to do with that.

 

[TimmyD16]

I'm not taking about making macro grow big, I'm talking about how clean of water you put back into your system... What's the point of pushing through 85% clean water when you can slow the flow and put back 20% and under?

Recirculating skimmers might not be able to handle as much water, but they put out much cleaner water, which is what I am trying to accomplish and what I think others should try and accomplish... clean water is generally a good thing yes?

So after all that "the flow has nothing to do with it"? So why attack people who want low flow? There are more than a few ways to solve the problems that lie in a reef system... I do NOT see the difference between a bucket with a DSB and a fuge with DSB, other than you can multitask in a fuge...

 

[uncleof6]

I'm all for establishing facts and thinking outside of popular opinion. This weekend, I plan on building my 20L sump for my 40 Breeder DT. I've searched countless threads and this thread seems to squash many theories. If 2/3rds of my small sump's area is skimmer and return area, then whats the best usage of the final 3rd? If I could use it as a place for make-up water and ATO circuit, it would certainly be a cleaner build in both style and function. I would like to have everything inside the stand. If adding another square foot of sand has little effect,(DT will take care of that) and macros dont really do all that much if one runs a skimmer and GFO/carbon reactor....then a water tank area would be a huge help. Is it a valid option? In fact, why not put a bit of cheato in the C2C overflow? Take advantage of the lights and get two functions from the large 36x4x3 area ?
I also read a thread where some are questioning the whole live rock concept. Starting with dry rock means you will have nothing alive except for the corals/fish you choose to put in. Is it time to question the concept?

Well I would not put anything but water in the overflow/drain system. I suspect this is self explanatory.

A "fuge" less than 10% of the system volume, is said to not be of much value. That may be true or not. Algae will grow anywhere given water, sufficient light, and nutrients.

I would question the value of GFO, as being risky at best, and I think continuous use is indiscriminate. Phosphate is a necessary for life nutrient, and GFO can reduce it to 0, which means no life. Carbon is a standard, and assists the skimmer with organics of certain types. But neither will take them all out.

RDSBs are interesting creatures. DSB effectiveness has a great deal to do with surface area. A 5 gallon bucket with 60lbs of oolitic aragonite (or silica sand works just as well) being an excellent starting point, for up to 120 gallons, give or take. A smaller DSB, done properly, will do something, with little risk or benefit, other than reducing nitrates, same with the larger. A living sand bed is a different animal altogether.

ATOs are a good thing to have also. It is an option.

Dry rock will become colonized with bacteria, then with corals, and whatever else you stick to them, coralline algae (if seeded) will grow and colonize the rock. Not much else will develop naturally in the rock, in a closed system marine aquarium.

I don't think that the use of "live" rock is being questioned in a widespread manner. What is in question is the definition of live rock, as opposed to rock that was once in the ocean. Bacteria does not make the rock "live," nor does coralline really. A highly bio diverse, or even mildly diversely populated rock falls into the live rock category. However, what is missing from what is called "live rock" today, is the infauna, or critters that live inside the rock. These will not develop on their own. Cultured live rock, on the other hand, will have at least some of the common infauna, depending on how much you are willing to pay. Best odds with dry rock, is mostly dry rock, seeded with a few excellent pieces of cultured live rock, and perhaps some coralline cultures. (try something other than purple--or pink) The same with most commonly available rock sold as "live rock."

 

[jmpreef]

thank you :thumbsup: I wonder if I'll enjoy the tank more when it's finished? Designing everything is so much fun:spin1:

 

[haynesw]

I've never been impressed by reef "science." There is very little hard science in this stuff. Mostly/entirely handwaving...

 

[uncleof6]

I've never been impressed by reef "science." There is very little hard science in this stuff. Mostly/entirely handwaving...

On the contrary! There is hard base science behind everything that has to do with aquariums. It mostly falls in: Biology, (mostly Marine Biology,) Chemistry, (both organic and inorganic,) Physics, and Mathematics up through Calculus. (There is nothing else left.) The hand waving, and scoffing, is done by those that do not have a working knowledge of, or even a basic knowledge of, these base sciences.

 

[JMorris271]

Who told you you wanted slow flow in your fuge? Well they were not well informed. The flow rate through the fuge should be fast enough to prevent detritus fallout--or it will turn into a garbage dump--full tank flow is not too fast. I can't really tell what you have going on here, but I don't think you are getting any mixing or decent flow through your fuge with the mods you have made.

If you get noise from water going over your baffles, then your baffles are too high.

Why do so many folks think otherwise?

 

[uncleof6]

Why do so many folks think otherwise?

Please see some of the comments I made above. I really do not want to repeat things I have already posted.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Why do so many folks think otherwise?

After reading and participating in a lot of threads relating to flow through many of the devices we use to clean water (skimmers, refugia, GAC or GFO in canisters, etc), it is clear to me that the number one reason that folks think low flow is better is because they are thinking of it as a single pass system.

In a single pass, it would definitely be best to have lower flow to get the cleanest water possible out of it.

But in a recirculating system (which every method we use is) you do not need to get cleaner water in a single pass. You can get better purification of the tank water by using more passes where each one may not be as clean.

The reason for this being important is that for most of the methods we use, having more of the impurity in the water makes the method more efficient. Algae grows faster if the nutrients are high. Skimmers work better if organics are high, GFO binds more if phosphate is higher. Etc.

So a low flow will purify each pass better, but some of the effectiveness of the purification method is lost and so it ends up not being as efficient as higher flow in the same method.

That said, I intentionally allow low flow areas for particulates to settle in my refugia. That may not be optimal for nutrient export (since I never remove them), but it does improve the clarity of the tank water (IMO) since the particulates are not returned to the tank.