Silent and Failsafe Overflow System

Hanover:

I will answer your question for thirty-five thousand zoolaks and a few kind words about Captain Sternn...

You will have no problem with those flow rates.

At 350 GPH, dursos, or open channels can also be very effective but still require a fairly large diameter pipe to be silent.
 
Hanover:

I will answer your question for thirty-five thousand zoolaks and a few kind words about Captain Sternn...

You will have no problem with those flow rates.

At 350 GPH, dursos, or open channels can also be very effective but still require a fairly large diameter pipe to be silent.

Heh so few people get the reference. :)

I'm thinking of using 3/4" bulkheads with 1 1/4" pipe. Is that too small or is 1" bulkheads about the smallest one should use? Really trying to avoid the prices on the 1 1/2" valves. :P
 
I'm thinking of using 3/4" bulkheads with 1 1/4" pipe. Is that too small or is 1" bulkheads about the smallest one should use? Really trying to avoid the prices on the 1 1/2" valves. :P

I've read where others have actually used the size up on gate valves due to them not opening all the way like a ball valve does. I gate valve is what you would want to use as it is easier to make minute adjustments.
 
Heh so few people get the reference. :)

I'm thinking of using 3/4" bulkheads with 1 1/4" pipe. Is that too small or is 1" bulkheads about the smallest one should use? Really trying to avoid the prices on the 1 1/2" valves. :P

Just as a matter of GP, I would not use 3/4" bulkheads-- bleeecchhhhh. 1" bulkheads, 1" siphon, dry emergency. 1.25" open channel.

Jim
 
Would there be any issues to running a plain compact ball valve + a union below it rather than just a true union valve as specified in Bean's pics? Costs less than half the price to plumb it that way.

i.e.
pipe from overflow -> true union valve -> pipe to sump

or
overflow-> plain valve -> union -> pipe to sump

It seems the only reason for a union here is so I can remove the tank without 3' of pipe sticking out the bottom - or vice-versa. Not even sure why he went with a true union rather than a single union. Am I missing something here? Sure wouldn't be the first time I'd gotten myself lost and confused :P
 
I've been looking through and reading some of this thread. I can't claim to have read all of it but it's been an interesting read what I have read. I'm curious if anyone's tried doing this without the use of an installed overflow?
 
The setup will work fine without an overflow, but you get no surface skimming and the high velocity intakes would have to be guarded with large enough guards to prevent the suction from harming livestock AND/OR getting clogged.
 
Hanover,

The TU ball valves were used so that the tank and/or sump could be drained and moved, as well is taken apart and cleaned. I built all 3 standpipes the same for versatility. You can get away with a single valve and no unions if you like. You can even do away with the TEEs and use 90's. I built the system with maximum versatility in mind. Some people of attempted to portray the setup as "complex" due to the number of parts. It can be done with a handful of fittings if none of the versatility is needed.
 
Quick question on this system. I have had mine running for a few months now and all has been great. It started right up when water was first introduced and all worked great. I have been shutting it down when doing water changes though as to not run the pumps dry. Tonight I did the usual 20 gal change, but it wouldn't start up worth a crap. The only thing I noticed was the emergency drain was out of water in the sump area. Does it have to be underwater for the siphon to start? I'm guessing yes, so I may have to add a piece to that pipe to lengthen it some. Just wanting to check before I tear into it.
 
Quick question on this system. I have had mine running for a few months now and all has been great. It started right up when water was first introduced and all worked great. I have been shutting it down when doing water changes though as to not run the pumps dry. Tonight I did the usual 20 gal change, but it wouldn't start up worth a crap. The only thing I noticed was the emergency drain was out of water in the sump area. Does it have to be underwater for the siphon to start? I'm guessing yes, so I may have to add a piece to that pipe to lengthen it some. Just wanting to check before I tear into it.

The actual emergency drain does not have to be underwater. I do not know about the siphon drain. I don't think it has to be in the water for the siphon to start, but needs to be in the water for it to be silent. That's my guess.
 
The other two are always under water. But it seemed like the emergency drain needed to be to get it going this time. Once that happened everything took off and ran like it is supposed to.
 
Quick question on this system. I have had mine running for a few months now and all has been great. It started right up when water was first introduced and all worked great. I have been shutting it down when doing water changes though as to not run the pumps dry. Tonight I did the usual 20 gal change, but it wouldn't start up worth a crap. The only thing I noticed was the emergency drain was out of water in the sump area. Does it have to be underwater for the siphon to start? I'm guessing yes, so I may have to add a piece to that pipe to lengthen it some. Just wanting to check before I tear into it.

The emergency does not need to be underwater for the system to start. The only thing that affects the starting is the depth of the siphon in the sump. If your system has been starting without issues, then all of a sudden this time it did not, what did you bump, readjust, or change? System will not change all on its own, just because it was shut down. If the emergency is now above water level, and it was below water level before, the lowering of the water level would have a tendency to make the system start easier. Check for the depth of the siphon in the sump <=1", and for air leaks in the siphon standpipe/line.

Jim
 
Is there a Wiki for this design? I've seen the original Bean design, but not certain if it is the current version/best practice.

Thanks

Jason.. I despise Wikis and similar user controlled information venues, they tend to be disorganized and leave casual users more lost than when they started..... I don't care for forums too much either but at least the information is IN LINE and can't get disorganized or branched and orphaned.

Best practices are as designed with few exceptions. It may be best to post your proposed setup and let us help you.
 
That bears no relationship to bean's design, will not work the way it is expected too, and really should be in this thread:

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1910879

Bean's system is 3 discreet standpipes. Due to proximity to the water surface, the cross pipe will suck air, and a siphon will not develop. To get a siphon to develop, the cross pipe would have to far enough below the water surface to not suck air, and then you will have NO surface skimming. Adjusting this to perform as bean's system does, well-- I don't think it is going to happen.

Jim
 
I'm confused. Skimmers suck air all the time (maybe that's inaccurate, but they are open channels too), it's kinda by default since they're open channels of water. If the input of water into the skimmer does not exceed the channel's ability to take that water in then how is it not behaving like an overflow channel?

Have you taken this premise and attempted to adapt it to running a BeanAnimal style set of pipes? I'm not saying that you're wrong (and you admit that you don't know if it would work), but there seems to be a lot of off-handed neigh saying about this system's ability to handle water flow (from the other thread). I'm also not saying that I'm right, since I have no idea if it really will work also. I am however willing to experiment and see if it can work. And I think it can with a little (or a lot) of tweaking/modification. And the tweak I've made to make it at least look like a BA is to introduce a "trap" which could/would simulate the pipe being completely submerged all the time so long as the water level never drops below the bottom of the "U".

From what I understand of the BA system. There are 3 drains involved. 2 which are effectively siphon/durso pipes and an emergency overflow in the event that the two primary drains fail. Of the two down-turned pipes, one is adjusted to maintain a water level high enough to prevent air from being introduced into that siphon's piping. The other down-turned pipe is a low-flow wide open piping scheme which handles the excess flow which is generated by tuning the full siphon to maintain the aforementioned water level.

SO! I hypothesize, based on this information, that it is possible to utilize a BA method on the above illustrated system IF it is possible for two things to happen.

1) Water level can be maintained at an arbitrary level high enough to keep the bottom of the Skimmer pipe wet with 1/16" of water. This is just a number, could be any number as long as the water level in the initial overflow piping is high enough that water can flow freely to either side to drain.

2) The skimmer pipe does not become completely submerged in water.

The solution to the skimmer pipe getting submerged is a simple matter of either opening the ball valve wider to allow more flow OR making the groove/notch in the skimmer pipe wider which will provide more room for water to fall in without meeting itself in the middle. The latter solution will only work to a point where the pipe is cut in half at which point bigger pipe will be needed to get more surface area to work with.

Based on what I've said, does this at least sound like a logical/reasonable conclusion to arrive at given the two conditions which need to be met and is my understanding on how the BA system works accurate?
 
Is there any table around that shows the suction gph based on the diameter of the tubing?

Thanks.

Go back a few pages in this thread. Bean posted a chart that states those exact figures. Based on a drop of 12". You drop will undoubtedly be greater than that figure, so expect the numbers to be larger.

Jim
 
Back
Top