Silent and Failsafe Overflow System
- Thread starter JohnL
- Start date
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
Sure, but when the power fails, you will drain the tank down to the bulkheads (or wherever the lowest discharge point is.
CreativeGuy
Creature Morpheus ...
Grrrrrr, flipping back and forth with going over the top with the closed loops as to minimize the number of holes drilled into the tank. It is just hard to do because of so limited real estate at the back of the tank which forces many of the pipes to be over and in front of the coast to coast overflow. Decisions Decisions !
This is a major choice which I won't be able to change later on.
Going to spend the day at a seminar/workshop on breeding at MAST (Marinelife Aquarium Society of Michigan), so hoping to meet some new people.
This is a major choice which I won't be able to change later on.
Going to spend the day at a seminar/workshop on breeding at MAST (Marinelife Aquarium Society of Michigan), so hoping to meet some new people.
pandimus
Active member
seems the concensus is put it at the bottom lip of your tank trim.. if you have it..
would it be bad for the design if i have it too low since i alrdy drill the holes.:headwalls::headwalls::headwalls:
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
The top edge of the overflow box sets the water level in the display tank... if it is 6" below the trim, then the water level in the display will be about 6" below the trim.
Bean don't you ever sleep. Just wanted to let you I have been running a full coast to coast and and the fail safe overflow for a year now. Super quiet, adjusted it once, and trouble free. That's with it running thru a crawl space for 6 feet to get to the basement. I have to do it to my other tank now to keep the floor dry and mama happy.
Bill
Bill
ill just remove silicone, glass and get a taller piece
Last edited:
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
SpacedCowboy
New member
So, it looks as though you need to have the three pipes as part of a single connected "manifold" volume, right ? You can't do this using the standard 2-drilled-holes-per-overflow and 2 overflows in the tank ?
The tank is already drilled as a standard tank, and I was planning to go 'Herbie' on it, but I've read reports of people struggling with multiple returns when using the Herbie method... Just checking out my options
Simon.
The tank is already drilled as a standard tank, and I was planning to go 'Herbie' on it, but I've read reports of people struggling with multiple returns when using the Herbie method... Just checking out my options
Simon.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
Simon, the "struggle" is due to the fact that there is no way to ensure equal and consistent volumes of water flow into each of the two boxes. Becuase the flow to each box can change, tuning a siphon in each box becomes hard, if not impossible to maintain.
A simple solution: Open channel and siphon in one box. Emergency and return in other box, filled with sand to within a few inches of the top. That will keep the water from stagnating and give a small DSB for NNR while allowing you to run the system as described here.
A simple solution: Open channel and siphon in one box. Emergency and return in other box, filled with sand to within a few inches of the top. That will keep the water from stagnating and give a small DSB for NNR while allowing you to run the system as described here.
trigger gta
New member
Bean
what are your thought on conecting the dual overflows with a coast to coast chanel along the back wall?
what are your thought on conecting the dual overflows with a coast to coast chanel along the back wall?
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
Certainly a viable solution, but depending on the dimensions may or may not allow the open channel and siphon to be in opposite chambers and interact.
Hello Mr. BeanAnimal,
I'm planning out a 90G with sump/ref (nice LifeReef LF1-300 + VS3-30 skimmer) and moving 700gph from the sump (will use some MP40 for current in DT). I will absolutely do a C2C using your design and wondered whether the siphon/open channels can be sized at 3/4" and the upturned emergency channel at 1.5". It seems right-sized based on some flow charts. A 3/4" siphon would seem to easily handle 700gph (charts say gravity pressure 6fps 660gph). It's definitely cheaper. Wnated your view before I go shoot off buying stuff. Thank you for sharing with all of us.
Lynn
I'm planning out a 90G with sump/ref (nice LifeReef LF1-300 + VS3-30 skimmer) and moving 700gph from the sump (will use some MP40 for current in DT). I will absolutely do a C2C using your design and wondered whether the siphon/open channels can be sized at 3/4" and the upturned emergency channel at 1.5". It seems right-sized based on some flow charts. A 3/4" siphon would seem to easily handle 700gph (charts say gravity pressure 6fps 660gph). It's definitely cheaper. Wnated your view before I go shoot off buying stuff. Thank you for sharing with all of us.
Lynn
SpacedCowboy
New member
... aand I'm back. I figured I'd read the rest of the thread before asking this - seemed the least I could do to make sure someone else hadn't already tried it, since I'm coming into this so late. That was 185 pages of 25-posts-per-page. There is a *lot* of incredibly useful information in this thread
So, here's what I wanted to do:
Above you were recommending the open channel and the siphon in one overflow, the emergency and the return plumbed into the other. I could do this, but it would mean the surface skimming (for an 8' tank) was only 22", which strikes me as a bit low.
How about the below:
Here, I've got no dry emergency drain (and yes, I realise this is not your design as originally envisaged), but there are still two open-channels, both of which are set at the same height, so ought to drain at the same rate. If flow is uneven between the two drains over time, I don't see that it matters because this isn't the siphon, it's the low-flow "buffering" drain that allows for some variation in tuning.
I realise there are some advantages to having a dry emergency drain (it's pretty unlikely to get clogged - not mathematically zero, but pretty close to it), but the chances of having both open drains (each in different overflows) simultaneously clogged must be pretty darned low as well, and if any event were to somehow cause there to be danger, I'd start hearing the gurgling as the flow caused turbulence in the open drains, right ?
The benefit is that I double my weir length. The downside is that I lose the near-infallibility and it just becomes incredibly unlikely to fail. Any engineering problem is an exercise in trading off benefits and consequences, and assuming I'm right that the failure likelihood is still miniscule, I think the benefit of the extended weir length might be worth it.
Of course that's a big assumption, hence the question to the group as a whole - are my conclusions valid ? Or have I missed something and it's a no-go.
One other option might be to connect the two overflow boxes at the bottom (just using bulkhead<-->1" pipe<-->bulkhead) again all internally within the tank. The sand-bed would cover the pipe so it wouldn't be visible. If I do that, I'm guessing the two overflows would act as one, and I'd have sufficient holes to do it as-per-original-design.
If it's not possible to do any of the above, I could probably live with the short weir, but it would make me sad [grin]. I'm assuming you mean the return water should spill out over the weir (rather than the tank-builder's intended direction being into the overflow over the weir) which would prevent the stagnation of the water on top of the DSB ? I'd probably want that to be a lower flow to prevent the sand from being eroded away, so I'd plumb in other return lines over the back of the tank as well.
Any insight much appreciated. Cheers,
Simon.
So, here's what I wanted to do:
- Keep the existing tank setup. 2 pairs of {1.5" & 1"} drilled overflows in the bottom of the tank, in standard reef-ready format - one pair per overflow.
- Maximise the surface-skimming area - each overflow gives me 22" of linear weir
- Not have stagnant water in an overflow
- Use a fairly high-flow sump/return to minimise the number of in-tank flow-boosters.
Above you were recommending the open channel and the siphon in one overflow, the emergency and the return plumbed into the other. I could do this, but it would mean the surface skimming (for an 8' tank) was only 22", which strikes me as a bit low.
How about the below:
Here, I've got no dry emergency drain (and yes, I realise this is not your design as originally envisaged), but there are still two open-channels, both of which are set at the same height, so ought to drain at the same rate. If flow is uneven between the two drains over time, I don't see that it matters because this isn't the siphon, it's the low-flow "buffering" drain that allows for some variation in tuning.
I realise there are some advantages to having a dry emergency drain (it's pretty unlikely to get clogged - not mathematically zero, but pretty close to it), but the chances of having both open drains (each in different overflows) simultaneously clogged must be pretty darned low as well, and if any event were to somehow cause there to be danger, I'd start hearing the gurgling as the flow caused turbulence in the open drains, right ?
The benefit is that I double my weir length. The downside is that I lose the near-infallibility and it just becomes incredibly unlikely to fail. Any engineering problem is an exercise in trading off benefits and consequences, and assuming I'm right that the failure likelihood is still miniscule, I think the benefit of the extended weir length might be worth it.
Of course that's a big assumption, hence the question to the group as a whole - are my conclusions valid ? Or have I missed something and it's a no-go.
One other option might be to connect the two overflow boxes at the bottom (just using bulkhead<-->1" pipe<-->bulkhead) again all internally within the tank. The sand-bed would cover the pipe so it wouldn't be visible. If I do that, I'm guessing the two overflows would act as one, and I'd have sufficient holes to do it as-per-original-design.
If it's not possible to do any of the above, I could probably live with the short weir, but it would make me sad [grin]. I'm assuming you mean the return water should spill out over the weir (rather than the tank-builder's intended direction being into the overflow over the weir) which would prevent the stagnation of the water on top of the DSB ? I'd probably want that to be a lower flow to prevent the sand from being eroded away, so I'd plumb in other return lines over the back of the tank as well.
Any insight much appreciated. Cheers,
Simon.
Hey Mr beananimal, 
Well I'm just about ready to start seriously getting stuck into the build for my 2 foot starfire cube.
I'm just wondering if you could throw some specific input into the scenario.
Firstly I have not pickup up the sump yet but a friend has graciously offered to give me a old but yet in working order one.
Sump dimensions
Width 45cm
Depth 45cm
Height 45cm
Currently the tank stands as this
Internal cabinet dimensions
Width 59cm
Depth 58 cm
height 68 cm (obliviously not going to be filling this whole size)
Tank Dimensions
Weir width 58cm (cost to coast, I believe it is called)
Weir depth 9cm
Weir height 55cm
Weir pre drilled holes 3cm
Total weir holes 4
From what I have been told /suggested and read this is designed for a Beananimal setup
From what I can read in your setup it only has a small weir depth and pre drilled holes in the rear of the tank, however mine has a very deep weir (whole tank depth) and holes at the bottom.
From my understanding
The first hole / standpipe is going to be my everyday return to sump (submerged downward facing inlet)
The second hole / standpipe is going to be my Emergency return to sump (upward facing, slightly higher then normal and out of the water operating height)
The third hole / standpipe is going to be my open channel return to sump (downward facing submerged, with airline, attached to the height of the emergency standpipe for kick in when the emergency flow height is reached)
The fourth hole / standpipe is going to be the return pipe back to DT (still deciding on how to terminate that end)
As you can tell i am a master of paint ! :thumbsup:
When I received the tank it did come with a single bulkhead attachment (20mm female). Is this the best part for the job as it sticks down with 10cm tapered attachment and due to the size of the bulkhead I have to sit the tank back 1cm from flush with the cabinet.
I there something else I should or could be using ?
From what you explain on your site
*had to remove your breakdown of pipe setup to post*
It also states that they should touch the bottom of the overflow box that way only water no live stock can get into weir / standpipes
I could easily cut each end pipe as a comb then cap it so water could still flow through successfully but yet still stopping inhabitants getting in.
Wont the water down the bottom of the sump stagnate a bit ? Or maybe I'm missing something
If i did place the pipe on the bottom of the weir wouldn't I have to allow for 30ltrs give or take to flow back into sump.
Also to add to this from what I have read in this thread, I could place the standpipes as the above post has shown, however i would still end up with the issue as I see water just collecting below and stagnating ?
Any advice and help would be very much appreciated.
Well I'm just about ready to start seriously getting stuck into the build for my 2 foot starfire cube.
I'm just wondering if you could throw some specific input into the scenario.
Firstly I have not pickup up the sump yet but a friend has graciously offered to give me a old but yet in working order one.
Sump dimensions
Width 45cm
Depth 45cm
Height 45cm
Currently the tank stands as this
Internal cabinet dimensions
Width 59cm
Depth 58 cm
height 68 cm (obliviously not going to be filling this whole size)
Tank Dimensions
Weir width 58cm (cost to coast, I believe it is called)
Weir depth 9cm
Weir height 55cm
Weir pre drilled holes 3cm
Total weir holes 4
From what I have been told /suggested and read this is designed for a Beananimal setup
From what I can read in your setup it only has a small weir depth and pre drilled holes in the rear of the tank, however mine has a very deep weir (whole tank depth) and holes at the bottom.
From my understanding
The first hole / standpipe is going to be my everyday return to sump (submerged downward facing inlet)
The second hole / standpipe is going to be my Emergency return to sump (upward facing, slightly higher then normal and out of the water operating height)
The third hole / standpipe is going to be my open channel return to sump (downward facing submerged, with airline, attached to the height of the emergency standpipe for kick in when the emergency flow height is reached)
The fourth hole / standpipe is going to be the return pipe back to DT (still deciding on how to terminate that end)
As you can tell i am a master of paint ! :thumbsup:
When I received the tank it did come with a single bulkhead attachment (20mm female). Is this the best part for the job as it sticks down with 10cm tapered attachment and due to the size of the bulkhead I have to sit the tank back 1cm from flush with the cabinet.
I there something else I should or could be using ?
From what you explain on your site
*had to remove your breakdown of pipe setup to post*
It also states that they should touch the bottom of the overflow box that way only water no live stock can get into weir / standpipes
I could easily cut each end pipe as a comb then cap it so water could still flow through successfully but yet still stopping inhabitants getting in.
Wont the water down the bottom of the sump stagnate a bit ? Or maybe I'm missing something
If i did place the pipe on the bottom of the weir wouldn't I have to allow for 30ltrs give or take to flow back into sump.
Also to add to this from what I have read in this thread, I could place the standpipes as the above post has shown, however i would still end up with the issue as I see water just collecting below and stagnating ?
Any advice and help would be very much appreciated.
TheFishMan65
New member
SpacedCowboy, I have considered your plight in the past. This is what I came up and would love to hear from Bean on it.
First place a siphon in each weir and tie them to a common pipe and then the valve. This should keep the height it the two weirs fairly close. If one starts to rise it will have more pressure and either drain faster or push the water to the other side.
Then place the open channel on one side the emergency on the other.
I have not tried this, but would love to hear constructive comments on this.
Thanks all!
First place a siphon in each weir and tie them to a common pipe and then the valve. This should keep the height it the two weirs fairly close. If one starts to rise it will have more pressure and either drain faster or push the water to the other side.
Then place the open channel on one side the emergency on the other.
I have not tried this, but would love to hear constructive comments on this.
Thanks all!
SpacedCowboy
New member
Hey Bean
Any thoughts on what I or TheFishMan65 mention above ? No great hurry because I'm just about to leave for Europe for a couple of weeks, but I *am* curious
Cheers
Simon.
Any thoughts on what I or TheFishMan65 mention above ? No great hurry because I'm just about to leave for Europe for a couple of weeks, but I *am* curious
Cheers
Simon.
Similar threads
