Silent and Failsafe Overflow System

[phi delt reefer]

duplicate post - mods please delete.

 

[kameleon23]

Bean,
after reading about 70+ pages of this Thread, and a ton of older Calfo or C2C threads, i am not finding a couple of questions that are puzzling me. I plan on putting a C2C overflow the full length of my 6 foot long 125. My questions are will surface agitation from my returns and/or powerheads create a problem with the skimming function of this weir? I thought that creating that agitation was essential for oxygen exchange? More importantly for viewing....the shimmer effect that it adds from the halides? Seems to me that in order to have this type of overflow to be effecient/effective that the surface would need to be calm? Thanks in advance!

 

[kameleon23]

Bean,
after reading about 70+ pages of this Thread, and a ton of older Calfo or C2C threads, i am not finding a couple of questions that are puzzling me. I plan on putting a C2C overflow the full length of my 6 foot long 125. My questions are will surface agitation from my returns and/or powerheads create a problem with the skimming function of this weir? I thought that creating that agitation was essential for oxygen exchange? More importantly for viewing....the shimmer effect that it adds from the halides? Seems to me that in order to have this type of overflow to be effecient/effective that the surface would need to be calm? Thanks in advance!

 

[uncleof6]

The agitation of the surface IS necessary for the gas exchange of the system. This agitation (unless caused by a wave maker device causing level changes on the order of inches) will not affect the performance of the "weir." What you are planning is perhaps one of the very best modifications you can do for your system-- that and combining the c2c with bean's drain system design. Don't worry about it, and on with the show.

 

[kameleon23]

The agitation of the surface IS necessary for the gas exchange of the system. This agitation (unless caused by a wave maker device causing level changes on the order of inches) will not affect the performance of the "weir." What you are planning is perhaps one of the very best modifications you can do for your system-- that and combining the c2c with bean's drain system design. Don't worry about it, and on with the show.

Thanks for the fast reply. If that is the case, i will use my returns over the top of the overflow to create the agitation, and just move my powerheads down lower in the tank to keep up with the flow. I dont plan on using a wavemaker either so this is good info for me.

Now its time for me to drain the tank and tear out the dual overflows that are built in. Thanks again

 

[KrazyOnetime]

adapting this to DD 250g

adapting this to DD 250g

Bean, I just took delevery of my 250g Marineland DD with standard corner overflows. It has two 1" bulkheads with the standard Durso set-up. How exactly would I adapt this set-up to your style overflow? I want to be able to handle alot of flow since this will be a mostly SPS tank. Thankyou

 

[SkyReef]

How should I place my bulkhead holes in my overflowbox so it fits all three pipes with regular tees (they dont make 1" sanitary tees from what i understand) and down turned 90s? I am planning on running 1 inch piping. So what I really need to know is how wide each overflow pipe with a tee and a 90?

Vince

Hey, Phi Delt Reefer:

According to Bean's posts, you need to place the bulkhead holes 1.5 diameters or 2.0 diameters apart from each other (early on, Bean said 1.5 diameters apart, but then later he recommended 2 diameters apart), with 1 diameter from the edge of the glass.

Question: why don't you go for 1.5" PVC and bulkheads? Bean stated that he only went with 1" bulkheads and down-turned 90s because that's what his tank was started with. Bean has also stated that the larger the hole and piping that you can reasonably use, the more volume can flow (to prevent floods) and the more likely it will be quiet. Given that Bean's original design (just beyond the bulkheads) has the standing tubes at 1.5" PVC, why not simplify your life and start it that way with the town-turned 90s and the bulkheads @ 1.5" too?

I am starting 2 new tanks with Bean's design (see post above yours), but I am going for 1.5" down-turned 90s, 1.5" bulkheads, and 1.5" PVC (on a 28-gallon and a 14-gallon tank). I don't mind "over-building," for the peace of mind it will hopefully bring (that no flood will occur).

Good luck!

 

[phi delt reefer]

Hey, Phi Delt Reefer:

According to Bean's posts, you need to place the bulkhead holes 1.5 diameters or 2.0 diameters apart from each other (early on, Bean said 1.5 diameters apart, but then later he recommended 2 diameters apart), with 1 diameter from the edge of the glass.

Question: why don't you go for 1.5" PVC and bulkheads? Bean stated that he only went with 1" bulkheads and down-turned 90s because that's what his tank was started with. Bean has also stated that the larger the hole and piping that you can reasonably use, the more volume can flow (to prevent floods) and the more likely it will be quiet. Given that Bean's original design (just beyond the bulkheads) has the standing tubes at 1.5" PVC, why not simplify your life and start it that way with the town-turned 90s and the bulkheads @ 1.5" too?

I am starting 2 new tanks with Bean's design (see post above yours), but I am going for 1.5" down-turned 90s, 1.5" bulkheads, and 1.5" PVC (on a 28-gallon and a 14-gallon tank). I don't mind "over-building," for the peace of mind it will hopefully bring (that no flood will occur).

Good luck!

I might go with 1.5" - i certainly have the room. The spacing you suggested may not work though. In Bean's original design the bulkheads were beside each other for the overflows were all sticking out of the overflow box. If you look in mine design, the entire overflow will be housed in the overflow box so they need to be wider apart to accommodate the Tee and then the 90 degree down turn.

I'm going to visit a plumbing store today to see if i can get the sanitary tees and what not to get an exact measurement. i am visiting a friend in larger city so they should have something there.

Thanks for the insight though Sky - much appreciated.

 

[KrazyOnetime]

Anyone?

 

[SkyReef]

Bean's Design Adapted for Nano Cube 28-Gal. Tank

Bean's Design Adapted for Nano Cube 28-Gal. Tank

Hey, Bean (and anyone with an interest in modifying a Nano Cube 28-Gallon Tank to incorporate BeanAnimal's killer, overflow-box design). I have adapted Bean's Skimmer-Overflow-Box Design to work with my Nano Cube 28-Gal. Here is my drawing, which is drawn to scale. This is the first of several design slides, and it depicts only the holes and overflow box. The Standing Tubes will be added in future depictions. Bean, do you think this will work? Thanks for your great ideas!

Comments, questions, and suggestions welcome. (See http://www.nano-reef.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=253282&hl= regarding overall goal with this tank, after Bean's design is incorporated, as well as the photo-diary for tearing apart the Nano Cube's stock partition-wall and sump.) Thanks, all!

 

[SkyReef]

Bean, I just took delevery of my 250g Marineland DD with standard corner overflows. It has two 1" bulkheads with the standard Durso set-up. How exactly would I adapt this set-up to your style overflow? I want to be able to handle alot of flow since this will be a mostly SPS tank. Thankyou

Hey, Krazy: Based on what I have read from Bean's posts, I think it depends on what you mean when you say that you want to adapt your corner-overflow set-up to Bean's overflow design. On the one hand, Bean has responded to a corner-overflow-design question before--I recall seeing the question before, but I can't recall what page in this thread he did so. It was in the first-half of the postings for this thread (before the thread got split into two links). So there is an answer from Bean on this.

However, on the other hand, if you aren't going to modify your corner overflows to incorporate a Calfo/Coast-to-Coast skimmer-overflow, then you are deviating somewhat from Bean's original design. Could you remove the corner-overflow partitions to incorporate a continuous Calfo skimmer-overflow? Are your bulkheads drilled in the back or the bottom of the tank? If you have a two-bulkhead design, you would need to add a third bulkhead for Bean's 3-standing-tube design (siphon, open-channel, and emergency standpipes). I think Bean also calls for the drain lines to be feeding from the same overflow-pool of water, so hopefully, the separation of your two corner overflows doesn't defeat this feature of the design. In any event, pictures would help visualize this. Hopefully, Bean will be back on soon to answer your question better than I can. Hope this helps.

 

[KrazyOnetime]

(SKYREEF) Ya what I meant is: How can I best incorporate this design to my OEM cornerflow design without drilling bigger/any more holes? It has 2 1" bulk heads on each side for a total of 4.

 

[Barfly]

(SKYREEF) Ya what I meant is: How can I best incorporate this design to my OEM cornerflow design without drilling bigger/any more holes? It has 2 1" bulk heads on each side for a total of 4.

Over half this thread is comprised of people looking for answers to questions that have already been answered.

Bean has already answered your question...

Originally Posted by BeanAnimal


The easiest way to utilize this setup in that scenario is as follows:

BOX 1:
Open channel
Siphon

BOX 2:
Emergency
Return from sump

Fill box #2 with oolitic sand to just below the overflow teeth. This will create a small but likely effective DSB for NNR.

That allows you to utilize both boxes and the overflow system without having stagnant water in one of the boxes. There are other options, but this is by far the easiest.

 

[KrazyOnetime]

I want to use all four as drains,i'd like to have at least 1500 to 2000 GPH of flow.. I have other plans for returns,and don't like the idea of filling box with sand allthough it does fix said problem. Thanks though.

 

[BeanAnimal]

You can't use all (4) as standpipes and utilize this system. The open channel and siphon standpipe MUST be in the same box. This leaves the second box FULL of water and stagnant with the lone emergency standpipe. Attempts to use the standpipes in that second box in any other fashion will either throw off the system balance or result in any number of other useless implementations of the standpipes that serve no purpose other than to complicate the system (defeating the purpose of the design).

The system, as described in the initial post here at RC and on my site, will EASILY handly 1500 GPH through 1" bulkheads. There is simply no need to utlize all (4) bulkheads as drains.

Filling the second overflow box with sand is not the only option, but it is the simplest (by far) and the only option I will put forth. It allows for a small but easily effective natural nitrate reducing area without complicating the system of compromising the design principles.

That said: You are asking an awful lot of a very small weir area and 1500-2000 GPH of flow. Connecting the boxes via a coast to coast shelf would be a MUCH more effective with regard to surface skimming AND waterfall noise.

 

[SkyReef]

Bean's Design Adapted for Nano Cube 28-Gal - Plumbing Plan

Bean's Design Adapted for Nano Cube 28-Gal - Plumbing Plan

Okay, finally. Here it is. Bean's design for a Nano Cube. Thoughts, comments, suggestions, welcome.

Bean? Will this work? My glass drill bits are ordered, and, in reading your posts, I can't see why it wouldn't work. You say your plan can be scaled up or down.

This is Bean's plan with some minor changes: all plumbing is 1.5" (the bulkheads, the turned elbows, and the standpipes. In reading your posts, I read that to accommodate a 1.5" bulkhead/elbow design, the Calfo/Coast-To-Coast, Skimmer-Overflow Box needs to be at least 5" x 5". That requirement is followed here.) This deviates from Bean's original design because his bulkheads and turned elbows were 1.0".

Thanks for a great design, Bean!

 

[uncleof6]

Okay, finally. Here it is. Bean's design for a Nano Cube. Thoughts, comments, suggestions, welcome.

Bean? Will this work? My glass drill bits are ordered, and, in reading your posts, I can't see why it wouldn't work. You say your plan can be scaled up or down.

This is Bean's plan with some minor changes: all plumbing is 1.5" (the bulkheads, the turned elbows, and the standpipes. In reading your posts, I read that to accommodate a 1.5" bulkhead/elbow design, the Calfo/Coast-To-Coast, Skimmer-Overflow Box needs to be at least 5" x 5". That requirement is followed here.) This deviates from Bean's original design because his bulkheads and turned elbows were 1.0".

Thanks for a great design, Bean!

Of course it will work, no reason it should not. Just a couple of points.

Bean used 1" bulkheads, 1.25" elbows, and 1.5" pipe. The reason for the 1" bulkheads was due to the fact that they were already installed in the tank when he converted it. It is not necessarily a design criteria, so you did not modify or deviate from the design.

Over kill is ok sometimes, but this is a case of extreme over kill unless you are planning to run above 2500 gph through your nano tank. 1" siphon and dry emergency, with a 1.25" open channel (1" open channels are not the greatest) would be over kill for a nano, unless you are planning in the area of 1500 gph +. But is the smallest size I would consider. You are going to wind up closing the valve on the siphon a considerable amount, making the use of 1.5" pipe a bit too much. However the system will work.

Also I think that the use of the valves on the emergency and open channel to be unnecessary and are just an added expense along with using 1.5" plumbing on the tank to begin with.

Also I find the teeth cut in the elbows to be unnecessary work also.

Just some things to consider

Jim

 

[SkyReef]

Of course it will work, no reason it should not. Just a couple of points.

Bean used 1" bulkheads, 1.25" elbows, and 1.5" pipe. The reason for the 1" bulkheads was due to the fact that they were already installed in the tank when he converted it. It is not necessarily a design criteria, so you did not modify or deviate from the design.

Over kill is ok sometimes, but this is a case of extreme over kill unless you are planning to run above 2500 gph through your nano tank. 1" siphon and dry emergency, with a 1.25" open channel (1" open channels are not the greatest) would be over kill for a nano, unless you are planning in the area of 1500 gph +. But is the smallest size I would consider. You are going to wind up closing the valve on the siphon a considerable amount, making the use of 1.5" pipe a bit too much. However the system will work.

Also I think that the use of the valves on the emergency and open channel to be unnecessary and are just an added expense along with using 1.5" plumbing on the tank to begin with.

Also I find the teeth cut in the elbows to be unnecessary work also.

Just some things to consider

Jim

Hi, Uncleof.

Thanks for your valuable insights! I think you might be right about this design being overkill. You may have picked this up already from my posts a few posts back, but I'm actually moving more than 28 gallons of water in the Nano Cube. The Nano Cube will be part of a 3-tank setup: (1) Nano Cube 28-gal for live aquarium; (2) 10 to 15-gal. sump below; and (3) a 14-gal Biocube on a nearby stand (a side-by-side configuration of Nano Cube and Biocube) for a refugium. Would that make a difference for your opinion? Probably not, but I had to ask.

In reading the many posts on this thread, I agree with you about the need for extra valves being unnecessary for flow-design considerations. However, the threads did discuss (and it makes plain sense) that the tru union joint/ball valves are helpful to have for quick-disconnect purposes, without having to unscrew the bulkheads.

You are correct on my error--Bean used 1" bulkheads, and a 1.25" street elbow (with a 1" slip in the over flow). I think you're also right on the flow issue. Going with 1" siphon and 1" dry emergency with the 1.5" reserved for the open-channel pipe is a wise way to go for such a small tank. In this regard, the open-channel pipe is the only pipe that could truly benefit from the size increase, to help prevent noise from too small a pipe, when air and too much water is mixed, causing the loss of the center column of air, which causes "gurgling" noise.

You've got me thinking. Okay, aside from being overbuilt like crazy, if I went 1.5" all the way, do you see any problem with doing so? For example, unnecessary weakening of the glass, due to two larger-than-necessary holes? I think you're saying that, in no possible mishap would the increase of .5" on the siphon and emergency standpipes serve any function, given the small volume of water being moved in the three-tank set-up? If this is true, then I'm just putting too big of a hole in my glass for the siphon and dry emergency pipes? I think you might be right. Do I understand your points correctly? If so, hmm. I'll need to ponder here. Thanks, again, very helpful!

 

[ToLearn]

You can't use all (4) as standpipes and utilize this system.

Not that that would be a horrible thing. ;-) There is always more then one way to do things and no two tanks or situations are identical.

Would it really be a disaster if two full siphons were used at the same time, one in each box, each handling 1/2 as much? Both full siphons would be at the same height and just restricted more(using a valve) then they would be in the normal design.

Obviously it isn't ideal and the coast to coast set up would be, but on a tank already running it would certainly be easier.

 

[BeanAnimal]

There is always more then one way to do things and no two tanks or situations are identical.

Certainly, but the discussion here is about a specific standpipe topology, not other types of designs. The poster asked if this system could be used with (4) standpipes split between (2) overflow boxes. The answers is YES as long as the advice I have given is followed. If it is not followed, then the system will not work as designed.

Would it really be a disaster if two full siphons were used at the same time, one in each box, each handling 1/2 as much? Both full siphons would be at the same height and just restricted more(using a valve) then they would be in the normal design.

I think you are missing the key points...

That setup would NOT function as this system was designed. The reasons have been outlined several times. Ignoring the topology differences (no dry emergency), you have no control of how much water flows over each weir in any given timespan. That is, slight changes in surface water movement can easily throw off the balance of the system, causing one box to gurgle while the other overfills.

Will this happen in EVERY setup? NO! I would imagine that some people will have the right combination of overflow, pump and tuning variables present to allow the system to stay balanced. Just as some folks have the right combination of variables to allow a durso or stockman setup to function flawlessly. In other cases, the setup may (will) fail miserably.

There endless permutations to any design. For example siphon standpipes could be connected behind the tank to allow them to interact with each other, etc.

The POINT is that all of the variables and complexity are outside of the scope of this design and not something I wish to support or allow to dilute the main purpose of this design. The goal was to propose a SIMPLE standpipe setup that WORKS as designed and can be scaled to fit just about any system WITHOUT changing the basic building blocks and/or setup and operating principles.

Obviously it isn't ideal and the coast to coast set up would be, but on a tank already running it would certainly be easier.

But not within the scope of this design. For that matter, not easier. If you wish to keep within the design parameters, then using (3) of the (4) standpipes as outlined several times above is the easy way to go. You get a NNR sandbed to boot