Silent and Failsafe Overflow System

[BeanAnimal]

Nice plumbing work on these set-ups, how much quieter is it compared to durso's?

Spend a few minutes reading the project description at my website and the fist few pages of this thread.

http://beananimal.com/projects/silent-and-fail-safe-aquarium-overflow-system.aspx

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=1310585

In some cases Durso (Stocklman, etc) standpipes can be rather quiet, but there are so many variables, that this is rarely the case. This system is not just quiet, it is by any reasonable argument SILENT in comparison and maintains that silence over any reasonable range of flows without the need to change the configuration as presented in the original plans.

 

[jcolley]

I hate asking questions when I'm sure it's already been answered somewhere, but for the life of me, I've spent days reading this thread and can't find it...

Still early in planning stages for my 220, but would 1.5" bulkheads be sufficient with 2" plumbing for 2500gph? Or should I just bite the bullet and go with 2" bulkheads. I'm planning a full length overflow box, but a little nervous about drilling 3" holes for the 2" bulkheads as opposed to 2 3/8" holes for the 1.5".

Any thoughts anyone?

 

[torino06]

bean, what if instead of using a bubble trap, use a diagonol piece of glass that goes into the return section from the dividing piece of glass? would this cut the bubbles?
i was trying to see how you set yours up but could not tell very well in the pictures i saw in your gallery
i have a 29 gal. and am trying to decide what the best route would be for me.

Your baffles are far too close for the volume of flow. Any bubbles entrained in the water are quickly swept through your single "under" baffle due to the high velocity of flow in that area.

You are also going to end up with a bubbles due to the waterfalls on both sides of the return compartment.

Not picking on you (at all) but I am not at all a fan of that style of sump (for the reasons just stated, among others).

Fixes:
Hard to say. Maybe adding an UNDER baffles 2" to the left of the first OVER baffle.

Maybe putting an elbow on the open channel dishcarge and directing the water towards the back corner.

Maybe a small pile of rock rubble around the pump intake...

Etc.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Whole page showing how my sump was constructed...
http://beananimal.com/projects/acrylic-sump.aspx

And of course the photos in the sump gallery...
http://beananimal.com/projects/acrylic-sump.aspx

 

[BeanAnimal]

I hate asking questions when I'm sure it's already been answered somewhere, but for the life of me, I've spent days reading this thread and can't find it...

Still early in planning stages for my 220, but would 1.5" bulkheads be sufficient with 2" plumbing for 2500gph? Or should I just bite the bullet and go with 2" bulkheads. I'm planning a full length overflow box, but a little nervous about drilling 3" holes for the 2" bulkheads as opposed to 2 3/8" holes for the 1.5".

Any thoughts anyone?

1.5" bulkheads should be sufficient.

 

[jcolley]

Thanks!

 

[SkyReef]

Setback on Sump Using BeanAnimal Design: Broken Sump Baffle

Setback on Sump Using BeanAnimal Design: Broken Sump Baffle

Sorry if this question seems misplaced here in this BeanAnimal thread, but it's relevant here, due to the fact that I am using this sump in a BeanAnimal-design setup.

I was all set to water-test my set-up, which is a BeanAnimal-design modification to my Nano-Cube + BioCube + sump. Then, my cheapo 1/8" baffle cracked in my sump, necessitating that I replace that baffle with 1/4" glass. Since I am going to replace the one cheapo baffle, I will replace the second, as well. Going for broke, this setback gives me a new opportunity to add a 3rd baffle, incorporating a bubble trap. Here is my design, for which I have questions. I post the schematic of the sump design below.

Question 1: Since I am mixing the drain lines of two tanks into a single sump (one set of return lines, lines 1-3, terminates in the protein-skimmer section and the other set of return lines, lines 4-6, terminates in the post-bubble-trap space before the return section because I don't want lines 4-6 (coming from a dedicated, stand-alone refugium) to get processed by the protein skimmer), does the third baffle need to be lower than the first baffle? I presume it does because water will be flowing into the area immediately preceding the 3rd baffle and could cause undesireable backflow or backpressure, if the 3rd baffle is not lower than the first.

Question 2: Are the height differences in the baffles appropriate: (a) the first baffle is 12" high; the bubble-trap baffle is 14" tall, but sits 15" high, given its one-inch gap at the bottom of the sump; and (3) the third baffle is one-inch lower than the first baffle, to reduce any backflow or back pressure on the flow established by Drain Lines 1-3--or can Baffle 3 be the same height as Baffle 1?

Question 3: are the high and low water levels of the return section appropriately set: (a) the high water mark would go to 9.0 inches (just two inches below the third baffle), creating a volume in the return section of 1.7 gallons of water; and (b) the low water mark would be 7.0 inches, creating a volume in the retun section of 1.3 gallons of water?

I wanted to make sure that the height differentials between the baffles and the high-and-low water-levels in the return section don't cause any backflow or back-pressure problems. What do you think of this design? Will it work?

Your help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

 

[SkyReef]

Improvement to Design? Moving Drain Line Nos. 4-6 UPstream of bubble trap.

Improvement to Design? Moving Drain Line Nos. 4-6 UPstream of bubble trap.

After further consideration, a modified design from that posted above may be appropriate. I think I should move Drain Line Nos. 4-6 to a position UPstream of the bubble trap, away from its current DOWNstream position, depicted in the diagram above. This will reduce opposing-directional water flow, and both inputs of water from Drain Line Nos. 1-3 and 4-6 will be flowing in parallel motion, decreasing the likelihood of turbulence-created microbubbles.

Any micro bubbles created by either Drain Line Nos. 1-3 and 4-6 can be alleviated by the bubble trap, which both streams of water will pass. Finally, Drain Line Nos. 4-6 will not likely merge back into the Skimmer Chamber No. 1 because there is a forward-momentum flow established by Drain Line Nos. 1-3, which would counteract any backward flow caused by Drain Line Nos. 4-6. As well, the downard positioning of the water jets exiting Drain Line Nos. 4-6 would tend to carry forward, downstream, not backward, upstream. You'll recall that this is desireable because I don't want the refugium waters of Drain Line Nos. 4-6 to migrate into the Protein Skimmer housed in the First Chamber of the sump.

Presuming this new design presents an improvement over that design originally posted above, here is a new diagram of this modified design. In this new diagram, Drain Line Nos. 4-6 have been moved UPstream of the bubble trap, from their prior placement DOWNstream of the bubble trap in the earlier design.

Thanks to those who contributed questions and ideas. Any further thoughts and insights would be most appreciated. Thanks!

New Design:

 

[RocketSurgeon]

The flow through the sump is roughly 900 gph after head loss. The sump is a 40 gallon breeder with baffles set up 1" apart.

The pump is rated for 1150gph with it being teed off at on the return side to feed the fuge reducing the total to 900gph going through the system.

Here is a pic.

-----------

I'm running a similar sump. 40 breeder under a 75 gallon. Using a mag 9.5 for the return. I'm only using two baffles for a bubble trap. I also have another pump for the fuge, as I'm too lazy to "T" off the return as have been long planned.

I do not have any bubble issues. My baffles are roughly 1.5 inches apart.

 

[brackishdude]

Here is my drain redo ala bean that is currently underway

It's silent and I'm happy. Thanks Bean!

 

[Brwestern]

Stupid newbie question, but what would happen if the air line wasn't used, just a hole on the top of 2nd drain? If the water got high enough, wouldn't the emergency drain kick in anyways?

 

[RocketSurgeon]

Stupid newbie question, but what would happen if the air line wasn't used, just a hole on the top of 2nd drain? If the water got high enough, wouldn't the emergency drain kick in anyways?

Without a properly placed airline tube off the open channel, a second full siphon will not kick in. With only a drilled hole, the pipe will suck air.

Edit: under normal operation, there will not b any negative issues. In emergency situation, a full siphon can move more water faster than an open channel.

 

[Brwestern]

Without a properly placed airline tube off the open channel, a second full siphon will not kick in. With only a drilled hole, the pipe will suck air.

Right, but wouldn't the emergency drain become a full siphon if the level gets that high?

Worst case scenario, first drain gets blocked, second air line drain takes in primary role. But without becoming full siphon, level will rise, and emergency drain will become full siphon. Which is how the system works in the first place right. 1 full siphon, and 1 2nd drain taking on the remainder. (with air)

 

[RocketSurgeon]

Ok, but I'm not sure where u r goin with this...

 

[Brwestern]

Just wondering if this setup will still function without the air hose, Aesthetics wise I guess.

 

[RocketSurgeon]

It will not function the way bean intended it, since the oPen channel will not create a full siphon. Under normal conditions, everything should b fine, but n an emergency, u may lose the failsafe feature of this design.

If ur first drain is blocked, and ur emergency can't keep up with the return, u may need the open channel to b a full siphon.

Always remember, this is ur system, but beans design has been tested if not proven already in real life scenarios. "Failsafe" is key.

 

[TheFishMan65]

Actually it depends on where the hole is. If the hole is placed above the emergency (so it can kick in if the siphon fails), but below the maximum water level then the open can become a third siphon. If on the other hand it is above the maximum water level the open would not be able to create the 3rd emergency siphon.

Now having said this I don't know if salt creep/algae growth or some other factor is more likely to block the hole versus blocking the end of the tube. I can't see any difference, but maybe someone else knows something I don't.

 

[NEK-ap24]

If the tube being visible is the only obstacle, I am sure there are other work arounds that would be less visible. You could tap and thread a 1/4" 90 into the side and up turn it to the desireded level. An air hose could be attached behind the pipe( toward the wall) and could be trimmed very short. Slots could be cut under the cap at the desired height. I think the tube looks just fine, but getting air in at the correct height should be easy enough, and why give away a failsafe?

 

[Brwestern]

I agree about the failsafe, and I am not good enough at DIY to try to improve or modify the proven system. I was just curious if it would work without. I do like the elbow on the side idea.

 

[NEK-ap24]

It dawned on me that I was answering with an external overflow in mind. My apologies for that, or for at least not saying so. I think the original design for an internal is best, perhaps just zip tie the tube to the plumbing so it doesn't stick up. The elbow on the side of the side of the down turned 90 I think would flood and not work as an airway. Again, for an internal overflow I think the original design is best.