Silent and Failsafe Overflow System

[ridetheducati]

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.

Please clarify, very difficult to determine what your trying to say.

 

[Bunnywunny]

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.

It's just a little guy and only dealing with about 300gph so i did it with 3/4" and couldn't find sanitary tees for the life of me at that size.

That picture budster just posted actually would fit the cabinet i built really well so i may try that with some 3/4" schedule 80(dunno why i just prefer working with it)

If that doesn't work i'll just start over and do it with schedule 40 and just cut it apart and rebuild if the move happens. pvc is cheap anyways

 

[BeanAnimal]

Slightly leaning the open channel will do the trick.

Putting a 45 near the tee may work, but the transition back to vertical may create the same issue again. In your case the flow is so low, that it is actually leaving the sharp edge of the tee and falling straight down the ceneter of the pipe.

 

[Bunnywunny]

(double posted)

 

[Bunnywunny]

Slightly leaning the open channel will do the trick.

Putting a 45 near the tee may work, but the transition back to vertical may create the same issue again. In your case the flow is so low, that it is actually leaving the sharp edge of the tee and falling straight down the ceneter of the pipe.

I had a spare valve so i stuck a barb and some flex line on it just to test it at a slant and the trickle is just very slight now and you basically have to have your head next to the sump. I'm thinking that is a success. Probably still build one out of hard line since I'm too much of a perfectionist >_>

thanks much! Never would have thought that such a small amount of water would make the jump instead of sticking to the wall.

Next step get out the welder and build myself a lighting rail cause man that AI EXT is hideous

 

[jmpreef]

FYI, today I asked the glass shop for a 3"x35" and a 4"x35" tinted glass strip 1/4" thick. All edges need to be smooth.

They want $16.00 which includes taxes. C2C overflow is on it's way!!

 

[budster.stig1]

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.

Uncleof6:

Maybe it is not so obvious! Based on your logic what you propose is not safe either. If the syphon plugs and then the open channel decides to plug (like it has the ability to make that decision) the 1-1/2" dry emergency can not handle 2000gph either. It would require 1.85" of pipe min. to carry that much water, the point being that many variables would determine if the emergency is truly safe. Assuming that both the syphon and dry channels will plug 100% each is, while possible, simplistic and not logical. Varying degrees of blockage, which channel or channels are blocked and water flow will all combine to determine how safe a particular size emergency channel should be, and what if it decides to plug too?..................Budster:bum:

 

[uncleof6]

Uncleof6:

Maybe it is not so obvious! Based on your logic what you propose is not safe either. If the syphon plugs and then the open channel decides to plug (like it has the ability to make that decision) the 1-1/2" dry emergency can not handle 2000gph either. It would require 1.85" of pipe min. to carry that much water, the point being that many variables would determine if the emergency is truly safe. Assuming that both the syphon and dry channels will plug 100% each is, while possible, simplistic and not logical. Varying degrees of blockage, which channel or channels are blocked and water flow will all combine to determine how safe a particular size emergency channel should be, and what if it decides to plug too?..................Budster:bum:

The siphon is on the 1" bulkhead, 1.5" pipe. The dry emergency is on a 1.5" bulkhead, 1.5" pipe. Which one is going to handle more? The dry emergency. Think about it, and reread my post.

 

[uncleof6]

The answer should be very obvious.

Uncleof6:

Maybe it is not so obvious! Based on your logic what you propose is not safe either. If the syphon plugs and then the open channel decides to plug (like it has the ability to make that decision) the 1-1/2" dry emergency can not handle 2000gph either. It would require 1.85" of pipe min. to carry that much water, the point being that many variables would determine if the emergency is truly safe. Assuming that both the syphon and dry channels will plug 100% each is, while possible, simplistic and not logical. Varying degrees of blockage, which channel or channels are blocked and water flow will all combine to determine how safe a particular size emergency channel should be, and what if it decides to plug too?..................Budster:bum:

Not accounting for friction loss, a 1.85" bulkhead will handle ~ 5700 gph, with a 2' drop. A 1.5" bulkhead, not accounting for friction loss will handle ~ 3700 gph, with a 2' drop. I know the physics.....where did your number come from?

I don't care to debate statistical probabilities of failure, that just isn't the point. The way you modified it, isn't safe.

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

It is inadequate. The moral of the story is: If you got to run 2000 gph with a 2' drop, you had better use bigger bulkheads. You cannot safely run 2000 gph with a 1" bulkhead dry emergency. I told you how to get the most out of this system safely. It will max at ~ 1600 gph with a 2' drop, less friction loss. Put the larger pipe on the 1" bulkhead, run it as the main siphon, and what you get is all you are gunna get--safely.

Build the system as designed, and it works just fine. You got no drop really, bigger bulkheads if you want 2000 gph, or increase the length of the drop.

 

[uncleof6]

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.

A 3' height tank with a 2' width, would not breath well. a 3' width with a 24" height would breath much better. Understand?

 

[uncleof6]

Please clarify, very difficult to determine what your trying to say.

Tall tanks, taller than wide, don't breath well. Short tanks, shorter than wide--or equal--do.

 

[budster.stig1]

Not accounting for friction loss, a 1.85" bulkhead will handle ~ 5700 gph, with a 2' drop. A 1.5" bulkhead, not accounting for friction loss will handle ~ 3700 gph, with a 2' drop. I know the physics.....where did your number come from?

Reef Central "Overflow/Drain" calculator, safe gravity drain for 2000gph.

 

[uncleof6]

Reef Central "Overflow/Drain" calculator, safe gravity drain for 2000gph.

Well Bernoulli wins. That calculator is way off. The flow is based on a few things: Height of the drop (head pressure,) size of the bulkhead, viscosity of the "fluid," etc, as well as things dealing with friction loss. Without knowing the drop, the calculator cannot come close to figuring out the flow rate.

 

[cheezischrist]

this may have been discussed many times, but does the size of the box affect anything? i have a 5" x 5" x 24" box already and was going to use that in my 6ft 125g, with 3 1" bulkheads. i know i wont get the best surface skimming, but will this affect gph capability?

 

[SkyReef]

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

Hi, Budster:

If you choose not to take UncleOf6's well-reasoned recommendation, i.e., to fit 1.5" piping on your 1.0 bulkhead, here is another possiblity: just re-drill the hole that accommodates the 1.0" bulkhead, to accommodate a 1.5" bulkhead (to which you would attach a 1.5" drain line). I've done that before, drilling a larger hole over a smaller one; it's not hard to do at all, and with a diamond-encrusted hole-cutter/drill bit from Glass-Holes.Com, drilling under the running water of a hose aimed on the glass surface, you could probably knock out that hole in 15 minutes, on 3/8" glass. One caveat, though: you want to make sure you observe the proper hole-width distance, such that over-sizing the old hole does not cause the hole spacing to become too close together. Either way, good luck!

 

[BeanAnimal]

this may have been discussed many times, but does the size of the box affect anything? i have a 5" x 5" x 24" box already and was going to use that in my 6ft 125g, with 3 1" bulkheads. i know i wont get the best surface skimming, but will this affect gph capability?

The box itself will not limit flow. However, for a given volume of flow the smaller the box, the higher the velocity. This means more possible "waterfall" noise and/or the possibility of air being entrained at the "base" of the waterfall.

 

[budster.stig1]

Hi, Budster:

If you choose not to take UncleOf6's well-reasoned recommendation, i.e., to fit 1.5" piping on your 1.0 bulkhead, here is another possiblity: just re-drill the hole that accommodates the 1.0" bulkhead, to accommodate a 1.5" bulkhead (to which you would attach a 1.5" drain line). I've done that before, drilling a larger hole over a smaller one; it's not hard to do at all, and with a diamond-encrusted hole-cutter/drill bit from Glass-Holes.Com, drilling under the running water of a hose aimed on the glass surface, you could probably knock out that hole in 15 minutes, on 3/8" glass. One caveat, though: you want to make sure you observe the proper hole-width distance, such that over-sizing the old hole does not cause the hole spacing to become too close together. Either way, good luck!

SkyReef:

Thanks for the in-put, your idea is a possibility, but a difficult one at this point. First the tank is 1/2" glass, second, it is about half way through cycling, so a proceedure like that would be difficult to do in place. While my present set-up is not ideal, I find the odds of disaster with this set-up pretty low. My objective to increasing the syphon size was performance, not so-called "safety" with-in the system. It seems to me a better, easier way to insure total safety would be to add a water sensor to the emergency channel and let my Reef Keeper shut down the pump and send me a text in the event of a failure. The chances of total plug of both 1-1/2" channels at the same time is obviously a reach, the 1" emergency will still assist a back-up caused by partial failure of both 1-1/2" channels of up to 1000 gph, I can live with those odds.

Thanks for letting me vent my observations of this subject without incurring a tongue lashing for daring to circumvent the "design".......................Budster

 

[SGT_York]

SKY sounds like a good plan.

If the intakes are protected from snails and large objects there is almost no chance.

 

[BeanAnimal]

It appears it is about time for me to hop in here:

RE: the reefkeeper and a water level sensor - Yes, that is a reasonable safety measure. But it is outside of the context of the original design criteria. The goal was to present an overflow system that required no moving mechanical or electrical mechansims or external logic to render the system safe in the event of common (and most uncommon) modes of standpipe failure.

RE: Probability of failure - Recently (a few monts back) I was pulled out of bed by the Warden (she gets up at 5:30 to prepare for work) and told that "something was making a terrible noise in the fish room". I arrived downstairs to find my Scopas Tang wedged under (sucked-to) the siphon intake. He must have jumped into the overflow, as the new tang in the tank had been harassing him. As Murphy would have it, the event (likely the thrasing fish) dislodged a piece of GHA covered egg-crate guarding that was then sucked onto open channel standpipe, as it was likely under almost full siphon. The emergency drain was actually taking 20% or more of the flow in an oscillating cycle. No water in the floor.

REerformanec Objective - While your objective was to increase capacity (performance) the implementation (like it or not) did decrease safety.

So back to the original purpose of this design. I can not, under any circumstances afford to have the Warden come downstairs to a puddle on the floor...

Will your "modified" setup work. Yes, it likely will, even with a reduced capacity dry emergency. What is the probability that it will fail to the point of causing a flood? The chances are extremely tiny. That said, the design breaks the design criteria and most of the back and forth here is likely an effort to make that clear to those following along.

In other words, there are infinite ways to construct a standpipe system and end up with "odds" that meet your design epectations or criteria. It is important to remember that this design was proposed as an easy to build, very broad bandwidth setup that, if built as published, would provide most end users an extremely safe and quiet overflow system, without the need for calculation, modification, or guessing. This thread is sprinkled with questions and problems from those who have modified the design without considering (or maybe understanding) the consequences. You keep seeing "as published" becuase the design is tried and tested, with expected results.

Enjoy your new system!

 

[budster.stig1]

It appears it is about time for me to hop in here:

RE: the reefkeeper and a water level sensor - Yes, that is a reasonable safety measure. But it is outside of the context of the original design criteria. The goal was to present an overflow system that required no moving mechanical or electrical mechansims or external logic to render the system safe in the event of common (and most uncommon) modes of standpipe failure.

RE: Probability of failure - Recently (a few monts back) I was pulled out of bed by the Warden (she gets up at 5:30 to prepare for work) and told that "something was making a terrible noise in the fish room". I arrived downstairs to find my Scopas Tang wedged under (sucked-to) the siphon intake. He must have jumped into the overflow, as the new tang in the tank had been harassing him. As Murphy would have it, the event (likely the thrasing fish) dislodged a piece of GHA covered egg-crate guarding that was then sucked onto open channel standpipe, as it was likely under almost full siphon. The emergency drain was actually taking 20% or more of the flow in an oscillating cycle. No water in the floor.

REerformanec Objective - While your objective was to increase capacity (performance) the implementation (like it or not) did decrease safety.

So back to the original purpose of this design. I can not, under any circumstances afford to have the Warden come downstairs to a puddle on the floor...

Will your "modified" setup work. Yes, it likely will, even with a reduced capacity dry emergency. What is the probability that it will fail to the point of causing a flood? The chances are extremely tiny. That said, the design breaks the design criteria and most of the back and forth here is likely an effort to make that clear to those following along.

In other words, there are infinite ways to construct a standpipe system and end up with "odds" that meet your design epectations or criteria. It is important to remember that this design was proposed as an easy to build, very broad bandwidth setup that, if built as published, would provide most end users an extremely safe and quiet overflow system, without the need for calculation, modification, or guessing. This thread is sprinkled with questions and problems from those who have modified the design without considering (or maybe understanding) the consequences. You keep seeing "as published" becuase the design is tried and tested, with expected results.

Enjoy your new system!

Bean:

Good to hear from ya' Thanks for your observations. I do understand the purpose of this thread and have enjoyed following it for months now, I understand your objective designing this system, but their has to be room to consider the objectives of those who participate in this thread. I did increase performance and I do understand it was at the cost of reduced safety, that's OK because I don't share your objectives. I know my design breaks the design criteria, that too is Ok with me, I don't have a dog in that hunt, just a system that I love to manage. I guess my point is there should be a little "wiggle room" in these discussions, just like you demonstrated when you hopped in to this one. I appreciate your support and help and will look forward to talking with you again.....................Budster:bum: