Silent and Failsafe Overflow System

[teesquare]

P.S. - In every case that I have seen using Adey's or anyones "dump buck type surge devise, the tank tends to become an algal turf scrubber.... Growing beautiful furry, long green algae....
If you have ever visited a rocky sea coast, where wave action is similiar to what the surge devises do in a tank - you will see firsthand.
Not to discourage you, but I hope you go visit and see tanks first hand that utilise a surge devise before you do this yourself.
This is not like a Vortech - it will create lots of bubbles, and great turbulence.
T

 

[teesquare]

If you can be patient ( which is hard in this hobby - I know) you will see the OM units for sale $150-$250 depending on the model - here on RC.....
T

 

[ooba]

Yes, I've read several peoples description that match that when talking about the Turf Scrubber. Also have spoken to several people that weren't at all impressed when they visited his set up...course, he wasn't trying to build a crystal clear beautiful tank or anything.
Do you mean that using the bucket concept itself will develop that algae? Or just using the ATS system? I wasn't interested in the ATS so much as just the bucket design.
I'd love a few vortechs.
sorry if it seems I'm hijacking this thread, its not my intention.

 

[teesquare]

It has to do more with the mechanics of HOW they work more than the specific diffences between authors/inventors.
Anything that creates enough surface turbulance so as to en-trap air buubles - i.e. tidal surge emulation - WILL set the stage in an aquarium for "green carpet"...
Mine is not the arguement most make about Adey'a system ( yellow tinged water rich in phenols, skatols and creosols) rather - it is the algae that overtakes the live rock, and enevitably smothers corals.

 

[ooba]

mmm
hadn't considered that.
I was hoping to get more surge motion into the tank without using more visible equipment...or an ocean motions wavemaker due to the upfront cost. Everyone seems really happy with the vortechs, but I only have a 75 gal tank, its not all that big and even little things seem to crowd it.

 

[teesquare]

You may want to check the classifieds here on RC.
Recently I have seen one of the small OM units. Quite reasonble and suited for a tank of 75 gal.
And because the OM units are not in the tank - no crowding!
T

 

[ooba]

Thanks.

 

[teesquare]

Most welcome!
T

 

[uncleof6]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14841383#post14841383 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ooba
mmm
hadn't considered that.
I was hoping to get more surge motion into the tank without using more visible equipment...or an ocean motions wavemaker due to the upfront cost. Everyone seems really happy with the vortechs, but I only have a 75 gal tank, its not all that big and even little things seem to crowd it.

Mind you, I did not say I used the vortech wave pulse modes..........:smokin:

Jim

 

[jb61264]

I have a 75 gallon tank that I will be installing this overflow system on...can/should I consider scaling down from the 1.5" size? or would that be a mistake? I've been looking at the 1.5" true union valves and they look HUGE compared to the size of my tank..just wondering if anyone else has a parts list for a smaller version..or if I just need to man up and go 1.5"

 

[teesquare]

jb;

If you go to the very first page of this thread, Beananimal shows some great pics of his overflow and he is using 3/4" or 1" ( I can't remember which) but - I was impressed with the flow rates he achieved with this system, and yet it is practically silent.

I do not think 1-1/2" plumbing is needed for your tank. If you are talking about 1-1/2" in the overflow, then reduced down to the next pipe size - that seems to work well.
T
T

 

[Reefer2727]

JB,

Im in the same boat. I can't believe how big and bulky even the 1" pipe is.

Teesquare,

You think 1.5" bulkhead and reducing is the way to go?

 

[uncleof6]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14844109#post14844109 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by teesquare
jb;

If you go to the very first page of this thread, Beananimal shows some great pics of his overflow and he is using 3/4" or 1" ( I can't remember which) but - I was impressed with the flow rates he achieved with this system, and yet it is practically silent.

I do not think 1-1/2" plumbing is needed for your tank. If you are talking about 1-1/2" in the overflow, then reduced down to the next pipe size - that seems to work well.
T
T

The only things 1" on BeanAnimals drains are the bulkheads. The street ells are 1.25", and the standpipes are 1.5."

Jim

 

[teesquare]

Thanks for the memory boost Unc!

And the plumbing below the overflow is at 1" also - correct?

T

 

[jb61264]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14844109#post14844109 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by teesquare
jb;

If you go to the very first page of this thread, Beananimal shows some great pics of his overflow and he is using 3/4" or 1" ( I can't remember which) but - I was impressed with the flow rates he achieved with this system, and yet it is practically silent.

I do not think 1-1/2" plumbing is needed for your tank. If you are talking about 1-1/2" in the overflow, then reduced down to the next pipe size - that seems to work well.
T
T

Thanks for pointing that out about the first page Is it better to have the larger plumbing in the overflow and then reduce down? or is it just as effective to use the same plumbing all the way through? I was thinking of using 1" for the standpipes (and then of course using 1" true union ball valves, etc.) unless this will reduce the effectiveness of the design..I'm not a PVC plumbing expert at all (did some simple work on my 40 breeder system a couple years back) so I'm not entirely sure about all these terms (bushings, etc) and also, if I use 1" for the standpipes...do I look for 1" bulkheads?

 

[uncleof6]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14844052#post14844052 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jb61264
I have a 75 gallon tank that I will be installing this overflow system on...can/should I consider scaling down from the 1.5" size? or would that be a mistake? I've been looking at the 1.5" true union valves and they look HUGE compared to the size of my tank..just wondering if anyone else has a parts list for a smaller version..or if I just need to man up and go 1.5"

The system scales down or up. 1" pipe @ full siphon will be around 960gph (1" elbows, bulkheads, and standpipes.) but the flow depends on several variables such as length and angle of the drop, etc. In the open channel drain, the "silence" comes from the reduced flow being laminar (non turbulent). in 1" stand pipe, the air/water ratio may not be ideal to achieve a laminar flow. Bean had suggested leaving the open channel a larger size. Looks to me like the pipe size is the single largest issue with bean's design right now.

Jim

 

[teesquare]

Jim
You really want the "siphon" to be completely full of water, no air...correct?
And then the "durso" or - open channel may have some trickle if needed... right?
Look at the post just prior to this one Jim - his question about downsizing the pipe is one that is valid. I would be interested in your explanation too.
Thanks,
T

 

[jjk_reef00]

I would say that the same diameter pipe all the way through would work as long as your return pump doesn't pump more water that the siphon can handle.

I'll be setting up a tank at the end of the month, and I'm going to use 1.5" pipe all the way through. Based on what I have read on this thread, I would recommend using 1 size up for the elbow inside the overflow box. I will use a 2" elbow reduced to 1.5" sanitary tee. Then down through the bulkhead.

 

[uncleof6]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14844361#post14844361 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by teesquare
Thanks for the memory boost Unc!

And the plumbing below the overflow is at 1" also - correct?

T

The plumbing below the overflow is 1.5" all the way into the sump. The only 1" is the bulkhead, and adapting up to the 1.5". His system was done this way because the 1" bulkheads were already installed on his tank when he did the conversion.

All things considered, unless the possibility exists that you may have to up your flow rate at a later date, there is no point in mixing and matching your pipe sizes/bulkeheads. As referenced by reefer2727's question. The 1" bulkhead in bean's specific case, causes a momentary restriciton to the flow, reducing it some. Going from 1.5," to 1" below the overflow will make the reduction much more significant. The system will work as intended in any pipe size, top to bottom. Size the pipe to your flow requirments. (keeping in mind that a full siphon will flow more than calculators assume.) The flow in the open channel is a requisite to the proper function of this design. A valve is only needed on the siphon standpipe. (Though BeanAnimal shows one on every standpipe.)

Jim

 

[uncleof6]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14844469#post14844469 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by teesquare
Jim
You really want the "siphon" to be completely full of water, no air...correct?
And then the "durso" or - open channel may have some trickle if needed... right?
Look at the post just prior to this one Jim - his question about downsizing the pipe is one that is valid. I would be interested in your explanation too.
Thanks,
T

The siphon must be that: no air. (or it would not be a siphon.) The open channel flow again is requisite to the proper fucntion of this design. The siphon is throttled back some to cause flow in the open channel. If that flow is laminar (non-turbulent) then it will be silent. (this is dependent on flow rate, velocity, and air/water ratio.)

Don't know which question you are referring to, but they all concern downsizing the pipe. Downsizing pipe, creates an increase in velocity, an increase in pressure, and a reduction in flow. Momentary restrictions have less of an impact on flow, than lengths of pipe at a reduced size, but they create more turbulence.

Jim