Remote Sand Bed and BB Tank
- Thread starter demeyer2
- Start date
mr pink floyd
New member
doc, i understand thats a play on his name being richard, but i think thats a little too far...
cweder
Member
To each his/her own, but I vote for the sand bed. Properly managed I think its merits are well proven. On the flip side, when mismanaged can definately lead to a toxic tank. I think this is pretty well proven also. So it depends on how you want to manage your tank. I am wanting a higher bioload of fish and I think the sand bed will help my situation out best. Along with a big cheato fuge, I should be less dependent on water changes to keep the water quality stable.
jamal-188
In Memoriam
One of the main reasons for installing a RDSB is that it can be changed out very easily if/when it does become a nutrient sink and replaced with new sand very easily.
I would beg do differ that a DSB is a major problem. They do have their benifits as well as their downfalls pretty much like any setup does. It is proven that a RDSB will decrease nitrates if run properly...so I don't really understand what you are trying to say. Did you ever read the HUGE thread by Calfo on RDSB's?
And I am not a BB hater, my current 95g tank is BB and I am currently not running a RDSB but I think many people could benifit from using one.
jamal-188
In Memoriam
When running a BB tank flow and nutrient export are extremely important. The whole idea is not to let waste, leftover food etc settle to the bottom of your tank and decay therefore fouling up you water.
High flows keep all the waste circulating through your tank until an appropriately sized skimmer can remove the junk from your water column.
gman0526
Active member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8742705#post8742705 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stan zemanek
here is the mother of all bb forums
http://www.thereeftank.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=164
most of all the bb'ers went here for there marching orders from spanky
Actually... we that participate there decided to do so to actually exchange information on how to properly run our BB tanks and not having to deal with all the haters trying to tell us how it's not going to work. BTW most of us still participate here too.
asnatlas , what KK meant is that many of us were under the wrong impression that we needed to run close to sterile tanks (overskimming, very little feeding, very few fish), some started to see loss in colors and some other side effects. We didn't realize that by skimming so agressively we were pretty much stripping the water clean of good food for the corals. Now we feed more (some up to 3-4 xs a day) and let the skimmers take all that is uneaten away, most people that had problems are starting to see good results. Also we have had the added "benefit" of being able to up our fish bioload. We have been able to balance our nutrient intake/outake and therefore we are showing better success. HTH
RichConley
New member
Bomber was a zealot. He was too busy saying sand beds couldnt work to even be taken seriously.
I've run both. I like both.
I'm just saying that we shouldnt be thinking this way. We should be asking what his tank needs. If hes running BB and having nitrate issues, we should fix the issues.
Weatherman
New member
I think we are talking minutes to hours.
The idea is to have properly-managed flow to completely remove any uneaten food very quickly.
asnatlas
New member
I see... I am sure you all have not seen my setup , but I just built a 600gal BB tank... I have 6 Tunzes (2x6100's and 4x 6200's) with a Dart feeding the 2x returns... I have a few dead stops where stuff will collect... I was think about adding some Seio M2600's at the back bottom of the tank so I would get flow across the starboard up the front pane and into the overflow... I am open to any suggections ??
Weatherman
New member
I didn't get a chance to read through everything in detail, but I was wondering how you had your Tunze Streams configured.
I, generally, recommend trying to set up alternating clockwise and counterclockwise whirlpools in the tank, especially if you have lots of Tunze Streams on a multicontroller. The mass flow of water in a whirlpool is considerably more effective in keeping uneaten food in suspension so it can be removed than any kind of continuous random, turbulent or rocking (as in WaveBox) flow. The turbulence associated with the switching of the whirlpool direction keeps things knocked loose, which may have gotten stuck.
I, generally, recommend trying to set up alternating clockwise and counterclockwise whirlpools in the tank, especially if you have lots of Tunze Streams on a multicontroller. The mass flow of water in a whirlpool is considerably more effective in keeping uneaten food in suspension so it can be removed than any kind of continuous random, turbulent or rocking (as in WaveBox) flow. The turbulence associated with the switching of the whirlpool direction keeps things knocked loose, which may have gotten stuck.
Weatherman
New member
How do you allow water to get into the Tunze Box? I would think the input holes or pipes would be like little vacuum cleaners given the amount of water the Tunze's push out.
Weatherman
New member
I looked at pictures of your tank and I think I’ve got your Tunze Box figured out.
It’s located in the back center of the tank with four of the Streams pointed forward, one pointed to the left and one pointed to the right. Correct?
That’s a tough configuration to avoid dead spots. The box acts as an obstruction to the flow from left to right, or right to left, along the back of the tank. I have the same problem with offset overflows in my 120. It’s almost impossible to keep the bottom back of the tank clean. I would never buy a tank with offset overflows again. My 180 and 155 have corner overflows, which don’t inhibit the circulation in the tank at all.
With your Tunze Box, I’d have two (or if possible, three) Tunze Streams pointed left and two (or three) Tunze Streams pointed right. I’d, then, configure the multicontrollers to run three of them at a time and switch back and forth at about a 5 minute interval (got to give time for the whirlpool to spin up). You’ll still get dead spots around the box, but you would be able to generate a large, oscillating whirlpool in the tank.
It’s located in the back center of the tank with four of the Streams pointed forward, one pointed to the left and one pointed to the right. Correct?
That’s a tough configuration to avoid dead spots. The box acts as an obstruction to the flow from left to right, or right to left, along the back of the tank. I have the same problem with offset overflows in my 120. It’s almost impossible to keep the bottom back of the tank clean. I would never buy a tank with offset overflows again. My 180 and 155 have corner overflows, which don’t inhibit the circulation in the tank at all.
With your Tunze Box, I’d have two (or if possible, three) Tunze Streams pointed left and two (or three) Tunze Streams pointed right. I’d, then, configure the multicontrollers to run three of them at a time and switch back and forth at about a 5 minute interval (got to give time for the whirlpool to spin up). You’ll still get dead spots around the box, but you would be able to generate a large, oscillating whirlpool in the tank.
asnatlas
New member
You are correct, I have the 4x6200s pointing forward and the 2x 6100s, one on each side pointing left and right... I will try changing the controllers to an "interval" of like 5 min, alternating sides and see what happens... The 4 Tunzes pointing forward can be put at a slight angle (maybe 15deg) so I will angle those towards the side of the tank that they are on...
Thanks for your help Weatherman...
asnatlas
New member
I don't think I am restricting the flow any... I have some 6100s in my other tanks and the flow out put seems the same... The water in the Tunze box are being filled from the holes at the bottom, and I would think if there were any problems then the Tunzes would be pushing the water out faster then it was entering... The water level in the boxes are about 1/2 lower then the tank, but that was expected...
