Refugium tips (formerly "flow rate thorugh a refugium")

[Bemmer]

Now my question---

I plan on adding a 29 or 40 gallon glass tank for use as a refugium-- I plan on a DSB, with a live rock rubble pile at one end and will grow chaeto in it....

How much exchange of tank water do I need with my fuge??

I understand the flow requirements of the fuge and can supplement this with a pump/spraybar or powerheads in it (to get the chaeto tumbling) but wonder how much flow do I need to exchange with the main sump and tank-- will a low flow/exchange suffice (100 GPH or so or even less)-- or is this too low....

Secondary to this--- if low flow is ok....

1. Should I run 100% of my flow from my tank through my skimmer (this is a recirculating skimmer all the flow would in the top of the skimmer-- it does not draw water from the sump) and then tee off the return to feed the fuge (this would lower my sump/tank exchange to less then my 1x my tank volume per hour)

or

2. Tee off the water coming from my tank to the sump and run the water that doesn't go to my skimmer to my fuge??? Using my current pump would give me 200 GPH exchange between my tank and sump-- with about 1/2 going each to my skimmer and fuge.....

I know either way I'd be running either a low flow or very low flow sump/fuge-- just curious what the opinions on a setup like this would be.....


If you think neither give me adequate tank exchange what amount exchange with the tank would you recommend through the fuge?? I can size the pump I need based on this recommendation....I've been considering replacing my Rio anyway based on some horror stories of them frying and nuking tanks....

I would appreciate any comments...

thanks....

Spuds (aka Bill)

Anthony,
I was wondering the same thing as "Spuds". Is it best to pull water from the tank (raw water) to feed to the refugium or can it come from the "skimmed" water in the return section?

 

[Spuds725]

I know my post was long winded-- I think skimmed is best (from what I've read) this is mainly to keep detritus from accumulating in the fuge-- if you have a "filter bag" that you can empty every few days you could probably run water directly to the fuge-- this was the only issue I had with feeding the tank water to the fuge directly-- I did this in an earlier tank.

The only reason I suggested running directly to my fuge is because I'm running such a small flow return pump-- this would increase my tank/sump exchange... rather then tee off my return to feed the fuge to set my skimmer flow.

but with my proposed setup, I'm really more concerned about a minimum tank/fuge exchange (volume wise)....this will really be controlled by the amount of sump return flow I end up with.

I'm not keeping a mandarin or anything but still want enough flow so the pods can get back to my tank, the fuge can help with pH control if I'm having any lighting/pH issues.

I'm still tweaking my DIY (recirculating) skimmer-- I think I got i dialed in pretty good now but had to raise the water level pretty high (about 2-3" below the lip of my collection cup)-- its producing a nice "dry" foam--- I estimate I'm running less then 50 GPH though my skimmer at this time-- I'm going to slowly kick up the flow to the skimmer and see how my skimmate production is affected.

Any comments from any "experts" would be appreciated as well as Anthony....

Thanks in advance...

Spuds

 

[smp]

I have the big aquaclear HOB filter set up as a fuge on a 29 gallon tank (I got the system complete, this isn't the way I would have done it).
One of those mini coralife fixtures is lighting the chaeto with two 9 watt PCs, one is actinic the other daylight.
My chaeto ball is healthy and crisp. Being that it occupies the entire area (except for a small sand bed and some rubble) of the filter it doesn't roll, but a lot of water does flow through it.

Lighting, cool.
Tumble, none.
Flow rate, High (compared to overall water volume I guess)

I haven't had the tank long but the chaeto is definitily healthy. I can't speak to the overall nitrate uptake because I haven't had the tank long enough to tell. One of the first things I did when I got this tank was lower the fish load. Right now the remaining tank inhabitants are probably enjoying the nitrate decrease thanks to the thinning of the population moreso than anything I could observe the chaeto doing (meaning that I've been lazy and not testing).

Also, Anthony I've been reading a lot of the posts in this particular forum lately and I gotta thank you for all the invaluable info .. and it makes sense!
Thank you!

 

[Anthony Calfo]

Thanks for your kind words smp... I do aspire to be practical as much as informative

 

[emora]

Anthony, are you saying that we shouln't be directing the ca reactor effluent directly into the skimmer?
:eek2:

Thanks, Tone

PS since following your mantra, my reef tank has blossomed!

Anthony,
I have the same doubt as tonyf, here.

Could you expound on your statement regarding the inconvenience of dripping CaRx effluent into highly aerated/dynamic zones?

 

[Anthony Calfo]

Hmmm... do y'all recall what happens if you let kalkwasser sit exposed to air? That chalky sheen on the surface: insoluble calcium carbonate that precips out and is useless and harmless.

Another famously oversimplified analogy by me Really... this is best taken up with a chemist.

But still you can get my point, yes?

By aertating the effluent of a single stage Ca reactor heavily (or having a wickedly turbulent sump) you will indeed off-gas CO2 faster (good) and form more insoluble calcium carbonate (not good... or at least not ideal).

It may well be a moot point either way (small matter). But as a point of improving technique, I strongly recommend folks use a second stage media chamber on Ca reactors to temper the acidity rather than aerate or expose the effluent to heavy aeration/turbulence.

Its a bit of a balancing act here. You really want the effluent to be diluted (ameliorated... not aerated) into the bulk of the sump/system ASAP. That will minimize wasteful preciptitation... and that can be done without aeration and minimal precipitation.

Has that explanation helped?

 

[Anthony Calfo]

a brief followup too... this thread is getting off topic. Fine topic... but not relevant to the thread, which as a sticky post, needs to be tidy for future archiving IMO.

Any Calcium reactor follow-up need a proper new thread of its own.

Thanks kindly,

Anthony

 

[dfwatson]

Back to flow...After reading all the posts and much good info, I would like your expert opinion on refugium flow. I am planning a 180 (72x24x25) aquarium and I would like to have about 2000gph flow distributed by the Calfo design manifold. I plan on having (4) 1.5 inch holes drilled in the back and plumbed to a 65 gallon refugium. My goal is to house my skimmer, tumble some cheato and achieve my 2000gph flow rate through the single manifold without any power heads in the tank. My question is... can I run that much flow through the refugium and back through manifold without having too many bubbles or other major problems. Also on a side note, your book on Reef Invertebrates adds some great insight. Thanks for your advise.

Daryl Watson

 

[Anthony Calfo]

thanks Daryl

As for flow through the refugium, 2K in 65 gall is brisk (30X turnover) but really not as high as one would have for some sps tanks (60X) and certainly not a problem. Especially after you diffuse it with a rolling laminar flow as stated above to make the Chaeto ball tumble. I say yay you can do it.

 

[dfwatson]

Thanks for input, I just needed an expert to tell me so. Trying to make my plumbing as simple as possible through (1) manifold. New book soon??

Daryl

 

[dfwatson]

After further review and the possible need for more flow, could I use the remaining drains as a closed loop and plumb them into the original manifold? Trying to get all my flow into (1) manifold.

Daryl

 

[Glimmerman911]

This doesn't answer your question, but what benefit do you hope to get from using 1 manifold instead of having the manifold + closed loop?

Is this in a fish room where you don't care what everything looks like, or is it in a living room so you have to have everything under your stand?

One option would be to use something like a barracuda pump on a 1" manifold, with 6-8 t's, going to 1/2" loc lines. That will give you approx. 2500gph depending on the total head. That would cover your tank flow. This is what I have setup as a closed loop, it works very well.

The refugium flow, depending on whether you have a sump or not as well, would be fed seperately, possibly from a drain line depending on the height of your fuge. Then use a single pump for your chaeto rolling. Depending on the dimensions of the chaeto ball area in the fuge, you could use the smallest tunze stream, or go with something smaller such as a quiet-one, or eheim, or mag pump. This setup would have two pumps.

Need more information about your setup, heights of various tanks, etc. to give you more options.

 

[dfwatson]

My setup will be in a living room with the sump below in a cabinet. I was trying to direct all the flow (including closed loop) through the one manifold for ease of plumbing and looks. Guess I'm afraid that I wont have enough flow with just a return from the sump.

Daryl

 

[Glimmerman911]

Ok. I tried running my sequence barracuda through my 50g sump, and no matter what I did, microbubbles were a huge problem because there was just too much turnover through the sump, not enough time for the bubbles to dissipate.

To be honest, if I were to do it again, I would use tunze streams (1 large, or 2 small), and not a closed loop for my water flow, and just use a mag 7 pump for your sump return pump. I know it puts pumps into your tank, but it is just 2, and they do not rely on suction cups like regular powerheads.

 

[dfwatson]

Thanks for the reply. Maybe I will just go about it in a different way. Maybe 1/2 the flow thru the sump to a split return in the main tank and a closed loop to provide a much larger flow thru the closed manifold. Right track???

Daryl

 

[Glimmerman911]

Could you list the size and location of all the holes in your tank?

 

[dfwatson]

(4) 1.5 inch bulkheads across the back. (undetermined location/height) Still in the process of odering tank drilling specs.

 

[Glimmerman911]

Perfect time to plan waterflow then, good stuff.

What style, number, and locations of overflows are you going to use? Are you going to drill the bottom of the tank for the overflows?

Two corner overflows, each with 2x1.5" bulheads would be nice, use one in each overflow for drain, 1 for return. To add in redundancy I would only have the pump matched to a single 1.5" drain though, so if one fails, the other can take up slack.

Then use probably 3 1.5" bulheads for the closed loop, 1 to pull water from the center of the tank, and 2 spread out to distribute the watet back in, preferably pointing somewhat towards each other to get some turbulent flow. You could t-off the returns with 3/4" or 1/2" loc line to distribute the flow around the tank more too.

 

[dfwatson]

I was thinking more along the line of the (4) 1.5 bulkheads on the back wall with strainers, not in the bottom. I guess I don't see the advantage of overflow boxes compared straight bulkheads.
Daryl

 

[dfwatson]

Also the return from the sump would be over the top and I would still have (2) drains to the sump.
Daryl