Silent and Failsafe Overflow System

[uncleof6]

Make sure you have good radii at the ends of the notch or--crack.......

 

[Mr_Jones]

Hey, not sure I understand. Radii? Also I think i need to increase the hole sizes as 50mm is to small for a 1.5" bulk head. looks like I need 62mm...

 

[Sacohen]

Best is the full length of the back side of the tank.

I understand, but I just don't have that option.

 

[uncleof6]

Hey, not sure I understand. Radii? Also I think i need to increase the hole sizes as 50mm is to small for a 1.5" bulk head. looks like I need 62mm...

Radii = Plural for radius...you need a good radius in both corners of the notch, or the stress will crack the glass.

 

[Mr_Jones]

Ahhhh got it thanks....I've sent the plans to Miracles Aquarium...Asked them to make sure the setup will not void warranty. Appreciate all your input here uncle0f6, really was a big help. Will be starting a new build thread of this 260 gallon and will be sure to document my beananimal and advise given from this thread. cheers!

 

[SkyReef]

What is the Optimal Distance of the Top of the Internal Weir below the Top of Tank?

What is the Optimal Distance of the Top of the Internal Weir below the Top of Tank?

This is posted in this thread a couple of times already, but I can't find it. It shows an "idealized" pass through for an internal/external on a 48" tank, with full length setup.



I don't think that your flow rate ~ 750 - 800 gph max, justifies the use of 1.5" bulkheads, 1" bulkheads, as in the original design will be more than adequate. Schedule 80 bulkheads are never justified, as black ABS bulkheads are fine; they are optional however, but have a smaller inside diameter.

Uncleof6 was good enough to republish this diagram, which depicts the backside of a tank, showing the pass-through holes, through which the water from an internal overflox box is passed through to the external oveflow box, on a BeanAnimal design.

This diagram is offered as an optimal schematic for a 48-inch wide tank. If one does the math on the numerical specs for this drawing, one can conclude that the top of the internal weir is 1.0" below the top of the tank. But is that right?

I thought I saw other BeanAnimal designs that recommended that the top of the internal weir should be 1.25" below the top of the tank. At any rate, my old tank (a twin-cube setup) that used a BeanAnimal design had the top of the weir 1.25" below the top of the tank, to prevent the chance of spillage over the top.

Now that I am building a new BeanAnimal design on a 75 gallon tank, I am again designing the top of the internal weir to be 1.25" below the top of the tank. This might seem like a small point, but if I can get away with the weir being only 1.0" below the top of the tank, as shown in the drawing above, then I might do it, so that the depth of the overflow box would be less intrusive and less of an eyesore to one who views the tank from the front and side. Every little bit of aesthetics helps.

What are your thoughts and experiences? I appreciate you input.

 

[picker]

> top of the internal weir to be 1.25" below the top of the tank.

the amount of safety above the internal weir should be driven by how fast your open channel and/or emergency will go full siphon. some of my drain attempts needed much more than 2" and I've done a few overkill designs that settle down before the fill level makes it to the top of the internal weir. Getting the air out of the drains is the main driver. (well, I guess that's kinda obvious but took me awhile)

 

[SkyReef]

Spec Sheet Ver. 1.0 - Bean Animal Internal/External Overflow Design For Your Critique

Spec Sheet Ver. 1.0 - Bean Animal Internal/External Overflow Design For Your Critique

Hi, All:

Here is a proposal for how the internal-external overflow boxes and pass-through holes will be positioned on the back of a 75-gallon tank (48" wide), using a Bean Animal design. Recall that earlier I envisioned using only three, one-inch holes, but Uncleof6 recommended I go with an "idealized" spec sheet he re-posted (see above). In particular, it was recommended that I go with larger holes and more of them.

Therefore, I have extrapoloated some dimensions from the "idealized" spec sheet to a modified external-overflow-box design, and come up with the spec sheet below for your critique. Will this work? Your suggestions are most appreciated, before I actually start drilling the tank.

Note: I went with the top of the weir being 1.0 inches below the rim of the tank, not 1.25; but I can change that back to 1.25 if recommended. (You may have to zoom in a little on the drawing with your browser to see the faint text of the specs. Sorry the reproduction is not very clear.)

Thank you.

 

[uncleof6]

All your dimensions are 1/2" too high.

YES! The drawing is correct. It just seems that some haven't figured out the difference between the top edge of the glass, and the top of the tank. If you look at my drawing you will notice there is no trim. That is for CLARITY, not because I can't draw trim. If it was there, you would not see the line for the top edge of the weir--because it is even with the bottom of the trim. This places the top of the weir, 1" down from the top of the glass (which is all you see in my drawing) and 1.5" down from the top of the tank. Whoever said 1.25" down from the top of the tank, was wrong. It wouldn't matter, the water line would just be that much closer to the top of the tank, but the actual concern is the top of the glass, and leak potential between the trim and the top edge of the glass.

Make sure you have enough vertical room so the tops of the down-turned elbows are around or just above the horizontal center-line of the holes. Measure the plumbing thrice, using pieces in hand. Your mileage may vary.

 

[SkyReef]

All your dimensions are 1/2" too high.

YES! The drawing is correct. It just seems that some haven't figured out the difference between the top edge of the glass, and the top of the tank. If you look at my drawing you will notice there is no trim. That is for CLARITY, not because I can't draw trim. If it was there, you would not see the line for the top edge of the weir--because it is even with the bottom of the trim. This places the top of the weir, 1" down from the top of the glass (which is all you see in my drawing) and 1.5" down from the top of the tank. Whoever said 1.25" down from the top of the tank, was wrong. It wouldn't matter, the water line would just be that much closer to the top of the tank, but the actual concern is the top of the glass, and leak potential between the trim and the top edge of the glass.

Make sure you have enough vertical room so the tops of the down-turned elbows are around or just above the horizontal center-line of the holes. Measure the plumbing thrice, using pieces in hand. Your mileage may vary.

Thanks, Uncle. That makes perfect sense. I never knew that a key concern is leakage from the top of the glass to its trim attachment. Again, that makes perfect sense. I'll also make sure I have enough vertical clearance for the tops of the down-turned elbows to align with the centerline of the pass-through holes. Question: my last tank, and my recollection of BeanAnimal's advice is to have the end of the down-turned elbows terminate about 1/4 to 1/8 of an inch above the glass; at this location, water is drawn into the tubes. Given the use of the internal and external overflow boxes in this design, it doesn't seem this rule would change; I should have the down-turned elbows terminate between 1/4 to an 1/8". Does that seem correct to you?

Finally, do you think the hole sizing, number of holes, and spacing between them is sufficient? I want to take your advice and ensure that there is sufficient water "communication" between the internal overflow box and the external overflow box. As well, I want to ensure that the tank will maintain structural integrity by observing proper placement of holes at correct distances from each other. Here, the holes are not placed closer than 1.5x the hole width, which should be optimal to maintain the structural integrity of the glass and help prevent cracking from stress. Actually the holes are separated by a little more than 2x the hole width, which should be more than enough, according to the rule of thumb. Is that correct?

Thanks, again. Your insights and advice are very helpful.

 

[BeanAnimal]

The idea was to create enough clearance so as not to impede flow, but also small enough to precent larger snails and other items from getting sucked in. If that (the stuff getting sucked in) is not a concern, then the distance is not critical as long as it is not too close.

The hole spacing is fine. The diameter and and count also appear to be ok. The external (and for that matter internal) box will stiffen the back panel significantly around the holes, so structural integrity should not be a problem.

 

[SkyReef]

The idea was to create enough clearance so as not to impede flow, but also small enough to precent larger snails and other items from getting sucked in. If that (the stuff getting sucked in) is not a concern, then the distance is not critical as long as it is not too close.

The hole spacing is fine. The diameter and and count also appear to be ok. The external (and for that matter internal) box will stiffen the back panel significantly around the holes, so structural integrity should not be a problem.

Thank you, BeanAnimal. Very helpful response.

 

[adamwheel]

First, thank you to all who've contributed to this thread. I've been on here lurking for months. Sadistic but I've enjoyed the read.

It's now decision time and I'd like some help/confirmation.

I'm doing a 160 gallon rimless build and will be using a c2c internal with 1.5" bulkheads. I could be talked into 1" bulkheads if you think 1.5" is overkill.

I plan on setting the weir 1" below the top edge of the glass, is having hole centers 3" down from the top edge ok? What would be ideal?

On page 203, Uncle lays out 2.75" for 1" bulkheads on a rimless. So, is 3" for 1.5" correct?

Thanks,
Adam

 

[Bunnywunny]

a hopefully easy question that maybe is already answered in this monster of a thread

I have mine all set up but my problem is the open channel pipe is really loud for me.
I Replaced the pipe with clear just to see what's going on and i am getting just a slight trickle down the back of the pipe as expected but when it hits the water line it's making a big splash and i guess it's just echoing up the pipe like an amplifier

any help would be appreciated

 

[BigCity]

I'm looking at possibly getting a new marineland 300g deep dimension tank. It comes with the default corner overflow systems, but could I remove these and plug the existing holes and drill the back panel to add this system instead? Guessing I could go to any home improvement store and have them cut me the required glass pieces to create the overflow and connect with silicone myself?

 

[uncleof6]

First deep dimensioned tanks are not such a good. Marine systems need to breath, and this is a function of surface area to volume. Marine systems should be relatively "short" compared to "wide", worst case, equal. (24'D x 24"H, 30"D x 30"H, 30"D x 24"H, etc.) I certainly would not set out to purchase a "large tank" that is deep dimensioned.

That aside, HD, and Lowes, generally, don't have 1/4" plate glass. What they have is "glazing" or "window glass" which is a bit thinner, and unsuitable for our purposes. Am certain, you can go to a glass shop, and pick up some 1/4" (6mm) glass--cut-offs--for pennies on the dollar, enough to make a C2C, compared to new glass. (Same goes for baffles)

But yes you can do as you suggested, remove and replace the overflows, however--be very careful not to damage the bottom seam!! Your warranty will be void as soon as you begin to cut out the overflow(s).

 

[budster.stig1]

Mod. to improve performance

Mod. to improve performance

Just finished modifiying my Bean Animal over flow. My origional design used
1" bulkhead and pipe for the syphon channel, and 1-1/2" bulkheads and pipe for the open channel and dry emergency channel. I have a 210g DT and needed up to 2000gph tank flow and the 1" syphon did not perform at that level, about 1200gph was max.. Because I could not change the bulkhead size of the syphon line, I switched syphon and dry emergency by adding a valve to the emergency line and adjusting the interior elbows accordingly. The results were as expected, increased syphon flow capability with increased flow from my Reef-flo Barracuda. I am pumping around 2000gph to the DT, with the valve on the syphon channel set at about 1/2 closed. I guess the obvious question now is 1" pipe large enough to prove effective if needed for emergency flow, I guess it depends on many variable factors. Anyway, I'm pleased with the result, I've attached pictures of the before and after configurations................................Budster

 

[uncleof6]

Should be obvious, but probably not. If you can only get 1200 gph through the 1" siphon line, which is expected with a relatively short drop and friction loss, How will it handle 2000 gph? It won't. So if the larger siphon plugs, the open channel will trip to siphon to handle what the 1" won't. Safety feature designed into the system. Is it a good idea? No. What if you are away, the main siphon plugs, and then the open channel decides to plug? Eh......

Change the pipe on the 1" bulkhead to 1.5", and put it back in service as the main siphon. This will increase the range of the 1" bulkhead, by reducing the friction loss. You will probably increase the capacity more inline with the original design. I won't repeat the admonishment. The way you have it is not safe.

 

[BeanAnimal]

a hopefully easy question that maybe is already answered in this monster of a thread

I have mine all set up but my problem is the open channel pipe is really loud for me.
I Replaced the pipe with clear just to see what's going on and i am getting just a slight trickle down the back of the pipe as expected but when it hits the water line it's making a big splash and i guess it's just echoing up the pipe like an amplifier

any help would be appreciated

Are you running the system as designed, or have you modified the original design? Is the open channel a regular Tee or a Sanitary T? In any case, slightly canting (leaning) the open channel to one side or the other will allow the water to run down the edge of the pipe instead of free falling down the center of it.

 

[BigCity]

I guess I'm a bit confused by your first comment, if a tank needs to breath wouldn't a 3' deep tank have more surface area than a 2' wide tank? I would prefer to have a custom tank, but at the moment these tanks are running double what the Marinland tanks currently is going for as priced by my local fish store.

First deep dimensioned tanks are not such a good. Marine systems need to breath, and this is a function of surface area to volume. Marine systems should be relatively "short" compared to "wide", worst case, equal. (24'D x 24"H, 30"D x 30"H, 30"D x 24"H, etc.) I certainly would not set out to purchase a "large tank" that is deep dimensioned.

That aside, HD, and Lowes, generally, don't have 1/4" plate glass. What they have is "glazing" or "window glass" which is a bit thinner, and unsuitable for our purposes. Am certain, you can go to a glass shop, and pick up some 1/4" (6mm) glass--cut-offs--for pennies on the dollar, enough to make a C2C, compared to new glass. (Same goes for baffles)

But yes you can do as you suggested, remove and replace the overflows, however--be very careful not to damage the bottom seam!! Your warranty will be void as soon as you begin to cut out the overflow(s).