Silent and Failsafe Overflow System

[pfoxgrover]

Thanks for the feedback.
I have a 240 gallon tank and plan to upgrade to a 350g. I think the watts would add up.

On my next tank I had planned on running 25 to 50% of the flow through the refugium. Right now my entire flow goes through the refugium but any pods that leave my fuge have to make it past my skimmer, bio-pellet, GFO, and GAC reactors.

I wanted to change it to give pods and such a better chance to make it into the DT.

-Paul

 

[uncleof6]

Pods will get chewed up in the pump anyway. Everyone is too obsessed with pods.... a well managed system will grow pods in the main tank. The sump is for export, not the production of pods. Do not dump a drain line into the fuge. It messes with the physics of the drains. Drain function is too important! Far more than pods in the fuge--in fact more important the having a fuge as far as that goes.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Pods will get chewed up in the pump anyway.

Somewhere, I read a compelling argument (not sure of there was data to back it, but think there was) that most of the pods do in fact make it through the centrifugal pump. They are small enough to be protected by the surface tension of the water as they pass through the volute. Truth or fiction? Dunno... sounds plausible.

Nonetheless, my refugium was above the tank in hopes of fauna draining into the display. Meh... the refugium was a detritus trap and nothing more.

My sump has maybe 30 pounds of LR in it. It also became a detritus trap. I recently raised the rock up onto an eggcrate platform to make it easy to flush out. The sump is (and always was) full of life. Sponges, tunicates, pods, tube worms, spirobid worms, etc.

Macro export is now done via turf scrubber (dump tray style). I am not sure I would ever run a refugium again.

 

[meegwell]

It is my opinion that most folks don't push enough flow through their refugia... I no longer have a fuge but am rather sure that the 300-500 gph through mine did nothing but allow it to become a detritus trap. If I were to do it again, it would be the full flow of the sump.

Bean - what was in this fuge and what do you mean by full flow of the sump? Are you saying that if a sump should have 700 gph based on the size of the DT, that should be the fuge flow also? Obviously this can be done plumbing-wise...but is it because of sand bed or other fuge occupents? Was the flow the cause of your detrius issue? Was it only because of your fuge setup or do you thing the fuge flow should match sump flow in most setups? ...recognizing not all fuges are the same...

Meegwell

 

[pfoxgrover]

My refugium is a bit of a detritus trap but it is bare bottom with like rock and cheato and I try to remove the detritus during water changes.
As I see it the main benefits I get from it is some export of nutrients, reverse day light cycle for PH stabilization, and a place to grow food in the form of pods and the like, safe from predators.

I'll admit that it never did much for nitrate of phosphate removal compared to bio-pellets and GFO.
Also the detritus removal is a PITA. Maybe I will consider something different.

 

[SkyReef]

Does the Front of the Overflow Box HAVE to rest on bottom piece?

Does the Front of the Overflow Box HAVE to rest on bottom piece?

[RE WHETHER TO USE A 1" DEEP (FRONT TO BACK) INTERNAL OVERFLOW (PASSING WATER TO EXTERNAL OVERFLOW) OR A 2" DEEP INTERNAL OVERFLOW BOX, Uncleof6 Wrote:]

Correct, not an indictment that there will be a problem, but more room downstream is not a bad thing. Just an indictment that I think it is getting carried away with "space saving." I see the case against 5 - 6," though even that is less intrusive, than a corner overflow, but I think 2 - 3" reasonable. What would cause a problem is a function of weir length, flow rate, and at what point the water would pile up, due to limited space downstream, as in a bubble trap for instance, rather than "drop."

Thanks, Uncleof6. I took your advice and upsized the depth (front to back) of the internal overflow box that passes water through to the external overflow box, on the BeanAnimal System. So now it is a 2" deep trough (front to back), rather than a 1" trough.

But here's the question: does it really matter how the vertical and horziontal panes of the internal overflow box are oriented before they are siliconed together? My original twin-cube setup that used a BeanAnimal design followed the pattern that BeanAnimal used: vertical front panel (the panel that causes the skimming to occur on the coast-to-coast) resting on TOP of the horizontal panel (the bottom of the overflow box), forming an "L."

But today, I wondered if it could be oriented in a slightly different way. I wondered if the vertical front panel could rest in FRONT of the horizontal panel, instead of on TOP of the horizontal panel. Doing it this way (with the vertical panel in front of the horizontal panel, rather than on top of the horizontal panel), would mask the seam formed by the union of the two panels, where they form the "L." It would mask this seam because the vertical panel is dark gray, and the horizontal panel is clear with a green tint when looking at its edge, seen quite clearly from the front.

So, Scenario A: from the front view: all you can see is a dark, gray, vertical panel of glass, which masks the green edge of the horizontal panel siliconed to the vertical panel from behind; or

Scenario B: from the front view, you see a dark, gray, vertical panel of glass, resting on a greenish stripe of the horizontal glass panel.

Can I get away with Scenario A, or will that cause leaking or other problems, requiring me to use the traditional, Scenario B?

Please share you insights.

Thanks.

 

[adeebm]

Plan on 12' - 13' head, depending on how straight the run is up to the tank. Changing direction is going to change the parameters. Vertical lift is only part of the story. I have heard of basement systems, that end up at 42' of head loss, with a 14' vertical lift.

I have not come up with a satisfactory solution to the dual overflow problem yet, other than not buying these tanks. Most good solutions are going to involve modifications if not complete removal in some cases.

That's unfortunate. I don't like the idea of a DSB in the column. Sounds like a tank crash waiting to happen in a few years. Will probably try a herbie in each column with the return over the top, and see how that goes. Know some people locally that it worked for.

--Adeeb

 

[uncleof6]

Thanks, Uncleof6. I took your advice and upsized the depth (front to back) of the internal overflow box that passes water through to the external overflow box, on the BeanAnimal System. So now it is a 2" deep trough (front to back), rather than a 1" trough.

But here's the question: does it really matter how the vertical and horziontal panes of the internal overflow box are oriented before they are siliconed together? My original twin-cube setup that used a BeanAnimal design followed the pattern that BeanAnimal used: vertical front panel (the panel that causes the skimming to occur on the coast-to-coast) resting on TOP of the horizontal panel (the bottom of the overflow box), forming an "L."

But today, I wondered if it could be oriented in a slightly different way. I wondered if the vertical front panel could rest in FRONT of the horizontal panel, instead of on TOP of the horizontal panel. Doing it this way (with the vertical panel in front of the horizontal panel, rather than on top of the horizontal panel), would mask the seam formed by the union of the two panels, where they form the "L." It would mask this seam because the vertical panel is dark gray, and the horizontal panel is clear with a green tint when looking at its edge, seen quite clearly from the front.

So, Scenario A: from the front view: all you can see is a dark, gray, vertical panel of glass, which masks the green edge of the horizontal panel siliconed to the vertical panel from behind; or

Scenario B: from the front view, you see a dark, gray, vertical panel of glass, resting on a greenish stripe of the horizontal glass panel.

Can I get away with Scenario A, or will that cause leaking or other problems, requiring me to use the traditional, Scenario B?

Please share you insights.

Thanks.

That really is just a matter of personal preference. It is not a functional question.

 

[uncleof6]

That's unfortunate. I don't like the idea of a DSB in the column. Sounds like a tank crash waiting to happen in a few years. Will probably try a herbie in each column with the return over the top, and see how that goes. Know some people locally that it worked for.

--Adeeb

Why? Is the flow in your tanks so stagnating that detritus will settle in there? That is the only way it would turn into a problem.

 

[BeanAnimal]

Bean - what was in this fuge and what do you mean by full flow of the sump? Are you saying that if a sump should have 700 gph based on the size of the DT, that should be the fuge flow also? Obviously this can be done plumbing-wise...but is it because of sand bed or other fuge occupents? Was the flow the cause of your detrius issue? Was it only because of your fuge setup or do you thing the fuge flow should match sump flow in most setups? ...recognizing not all fuges are the same...

Meegwell

At one time caulerpa, halimeda, etc... then just chaetomorpha. At one time piles of rocks, then none.

I am saying that pushing the full volume of the return pump (in most cases) through the "refugium" should be just fine. Faster flow means less detritus trapped in the macro. A few piles of rocks will give pods plenty of places to grow.

So instead of a "dedicated" refugium compartment with goofy plumbing and baffles, etc. just use the main chamber of the sump. Simplify the design.

3 compartments:

1. intake - this area has a fixed level set by the baffles. Good area for skimmer intake due to fixed level. Heaters go here, etc.
2. main compartment - life rock, sand, macro, whatever supplimental filtration and export you wish. Level may or may not be set by baffle.
3. return compartment - for return pump. May be part of compartment 2 with a low level baffle to protect pump intake. In this case both compartment 2 and 3 are part of the evaporation/top-off area. OR use full height baffle to set level of compartment 2 and use compartment 3 for evap/top-off.

Hope that makes sense... but I don't want to send the thread off into a tangent about sump design

 

[BeanAnimal]

That's unfortunate. I don't like the idea of a DSB in the column. Sounds like a tank crash waiting to happen in a few years. Will probably try a herbie in each column with the return over the top, and see how that goes. Know some people locally that it worked for.

--Adeeb

I highly doubt that such a small area of sand could cause a tank crash even if you wanted it to. Nonetheless, siphoning the sand out evey few years and adding fresh would be a reasonable (and fairly easy) act.

Don't want the sand? Fine: drop a little 7W or smaller (minijet) powerhead in the overflow box to keep the water circulating.

Or-- use a herbie or durso's or whatever

 

[thackett114]

Fail Safe Overflow Mod Question

Fail Safe Overflow Mod Question

Hey guys,

Hopefully this is the best place to pose this question - any input would be appreciated. I am getting ready to purchase a 125g and will absolutely be running Bean's FS overflow. Since I will be new to the hobby, I have been trying to read as much as I possibly can (in fact my wife now tells me I have an obsession)! On to my thoughts and questions -

Aesthetically, I am not happy with powerheads on the side of my tank. If this is the way I go, I will be running 4 1050 GPH heads (2 on each side of the tank). My idea to get rid of these is to run the return with an external pump (probably a 6000 GPH reeflo or similar) and plumb the return similar to the diagram below. I would of course use 1.5" pvc all around and would return using loc-line. As for as the overflow and flow to the sump, the exact beananimal design would be used.

Do you foresee any compromising affects on the fail safe system at all including noise? Any input is greatly appreciated.

 

[BeanAnimal]

While I am in favor of a high flow sump... There much more efficient ways to produce flow in the tank.

Stick with a reasonable return pump (say 1000-2500 gph) and use one or two large closed loops to derive the in-tank flow patterns. I would conside using at least one Oceans Motions wave maker device with a closed loop to get high random flow.

 

[thackett114]

So am I safe to assume that your lack of objection to the closed loop means there would be no compromise to the overflow design purpose? Thank you bean for the input.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I am not sure we are on the same page

The "closed loop" in context to aquariums refers to a setup where the pump draws water directly from the display tank and returns it into the display tank. The image you posted above is a manifold loop. It helps to equalize the pressure at each outlet of the manifold.

My suggestions is to use a MUCH smaller return pump with a flow of maybe 1000 to 2500 GPH to service the sump and its equipment. The rest of the tank flow will be provided by one or more pumps that draw water directly from bulkheads in the tank wall. They can return the water back to the display via bulkheads or over the top. I prefer to use the Oceans Motions devices to create random flow patterns.

The closed loop functions independently of the overflow-sump-return system and has no effect on its balance, flow rate or safety.

 

[thackett114]

Ok, I am with you now. Sorry - excuse the incorrect usage of words. Still new and learning. Thanks for the input and patience.

 

[BeanAnimal]

No reason to be sorry... this entire hobby is one big learning experience...

 

[SkyReef]

* * *

But here's the question: does it really matter how the vertical and horziontal panes of the internal overflow box are oriented before they are siliconed together? My original twin-cube setup that used a BeanAnimal design followed the pattern that BeanAnimal used: vertical front panel (the panel that causes the skimming to occur on the coast-to-coast) resting on TOP of the horizontal panel (the bottom of the overflow box), forming an "L."

But today, I wondered if it could be oriented in a slightly different way. I wondered if the vertical front panel could rest in FRONT of the horizontal panel, instead of on TOP of the horizontal panel. Doing it this way (with the vertical panel in front of the horizontal panel, rather than on top of the horizontal panel), would mask the seam formed by the union of the two panels, where they form the "L." It would mask this seam because the vertical panel is dark gray, and the horizontal panel is clear with a green tint when looking at its edge, seen quite clearly from the front.

So, Scenario A: from the front view: all you can see is a dark, gray, vertical panel of glass, which masks the green edge of the horizontal panel siliconed to the vertical panel from behind; or

Scenario B: from the front view, you see a dark, gray, vertical panel of glass, resting on a greenish stripe of the horizontal glass panel.

Can I get away with Scenario A, or will that cause leaking or other problems, requiring me to use the traditional, Scenario B?

Please share you insights.

Thanks.

That really is just a matter of personal preference. It is not a functional question.

Thanks, Uncleof6.

Glad to hear it's not an issue of function, just aesthetics. I wish I had the vertical-panel-masks-horizontal-panel approach in my last tank; it would have made the overflow box seem less distracting. I also wish that I had used the gray glass in my last tank, to blend in better with the back of the aquarium, which was painted black from the outside.

 

[uncleof6]

Use black glass....

 

[SkyReef]

Use black glass....

We're probably describing the same thing: it's quite dark--like very dark, tinted windows on limousine. I call it gray, but it's probably more accurate to describe it as black.