Silent and Failsafe Overflow System

[uncleof6]

Thank you! Your expertise is much appreciated. Just to make sure I'm understanding, I updated my overflow and sump diagram. Is this what you are pretty much suggesting, overflow wise? I know my sump is another story, but I'm stuck in a situation where I need to use two tanks under the stand. as opposed to one. My only concern I guess would be on the left overflow, where it's just the emergency drain, wouldn't the water become stagnant and would that have any negative effect in that overflow? If that's the case, is the only way to combat that to put a small powerhead or something in there to keep water moving around? Thank you again!

Actually, this would not be my first suggestion, I went strictly from what you said, did not connect up the other thread with your post. This tank is too large to use 1" plumbing. With flow rates close to where they should be, ~ 3500 gph +, 1" is not going to handle it, and the overflow is too small, linear length wise, even with both in operation. This tank is not a hobby tank, and hobby tank systems are not going to serve it well. Small dual overflows aren't really very efficient for hobby size tanks as it is, let alone a tank approaching 400 gallons. I am not sure if you designed the tank, or it was built this way, however tank builders are not flow rate savy which is painfully obvious; the last thing I would do is drill this tank out the bottom. The tank is setup to use 2 - 1.5" dursos, and 2 - 1" returns, which to be blunt, is rediculous.

I see this tank using 1.5" minimum for the siphon, but that leaves you with a 1" for the open channel, which is not going to work out very well. I see 2" for the return line. From the debates i am seeing about the best way to do a dual herbie in dual overflows, that concept is not working out very well for some either. Although it has been discussed, I am not certain anyone has actually implemented a bean in dual overflows...

For the dead overflow, fill it with sand, and direct a powerhead's flow over top of it.

I don't see how it is possible that you are "stuck" with using two tanks below the DT. Balance pipes look good on paper, but they do not work well at all, except at very low flow rates (max of an 1" or so head.) The fuge tank needs to be raised, to get some gravity advantage, and an overflow system used so you don't end up with an organic slick on the surface. That could easily cause some access problems. Honestly, the hassale of getting a dual under tank "sump" working well, with reasonable flow rates (see above) far outweighs the advantage of a refugium. You would be doing just as well, to run the 65 and leave the other tank out.

Sorry for the dark post, just irks me to see a great tank "reef readi-sized."

 

[Redman88]

would 4 of these in 1" pipe on a 55g be good?

 

[Mark...]

I'd like to get some feed back on a 180 gallon reef tank with center internal overflow. Over flow is 3 sided 9"x5"x5" with teeth. This will be a basement sump with 10.5 feet of head.

I want to use a 1 inch full siphon Herbie (gated) and a 1 inch dry emergency totally separate to sump.

I hope to use a DC pump (waveline 10000 or Diablo 10,500) with one 1 inch return to split to two 3/4 inch returns just before reaching bottom of over flow..

These pumps seem rated well for head pressure, just not sure everything matches up?

The sump is 72" long with a max volume of 70 gallons, but expect to only use 35 when in operation.

Input greatly appreciated.

 

[uncleof6]

would 4 of these in 1" pipe on a 55g be good?

Sorry my friend, you are in the wrong thread to ask about DIY PVC overlfows. Besides, no matter what you do, they do not work as advertised.

 

[uncleof6]

I'd like to get some feed back on a 180 gallon reef tank with center internal overflow. Over flow is 3 sided 9"x5"x5" with teeth. This will be a basement sump with 10.5 feet of head.

I want to use a 1 inch full siphon Herbie (gated) and a 1 inch dry emergency totally separate to sump.

I hope to use a DC pump (waveline 10000 or Diablo 10,500) with one 1 inch return to split to two 3/4 inch returns just before reaching bottom of over flow..

These pumps seem rated well for head pressure, just not sure everything matches up?

The sump is 72" long with a max volume of 70 gallons, but expect to only use 35 when in operation.

Input greatly appreciated.

Hi,

This thread is about a specific drain system. The system designed by BeanAnimal. This thread is not a one stop for all drain systems. It would be best to post in herbie's thread, or start a new thread with your questions concening the herbie.

 

[Mark...]

Hi,

This thread is about a specific drain system. The system designed by BeanAnimal. This thread is not a one stop for all drain systems. It would be best to post in herbie's thread, or start a new thread with your questions concening the herbie.

Sorry, I just saw the title, (Silent and Failsafe Overflow System) didn't know it was system specific.

 

[HowieUMD]

I see this tank using 1.5" minimum for the siphon, but that leaves you with a 1" for the open channel, which is not going to work out very well. I see 2" for the return line. From the debates i am seeing about the best way to do a dual herbie in dual overflows, that concept is not working out very well for some either. Although it has been discussed, I am not certain anyone has actually implemented a bean in dual overflows..

With the layout I have, I don't see it possible getting the ideal 3,500 gph through my drains. That said, would it be possible to get my flow up to the 2,000-2,500 range? Do you see any major problems if I went:

O o o O
1 2 3 4

1 - Open/Emergency Drain
2 - Siphon Drain directly to sump (not T'd with 3)
3 - Siphon Drain directly to sump (not T'd with 2)
4 - Return

O - 1.5''
o - 1''

I've been trying to read up about the Dual Herbie as opposed to the Bean, to solve my 2 overflow problem. My thinking is that if 2 1'' siphons were to both get clogged up for some reason, wouldn't it require a larger hole, the 1.5'', as a failsafe to support their combined flow? A 1.5'' emergency should be able to support 2 1'' in terms of flow, I believe. I see a lot of people with the Dual Herbie's using both a siphon and emergency in each overflow, having to then take their return over the top. However, all the posts I've come across so far seem to have all the same size holes, meaning all 4 are 1'' holes (2 in each overflow), for example.

Since I have 2 1.5'' holes and 2 1'' holes, my thinking is I could run my siphons independently (not T'd) from the 1'' holes straight to the sump, then just use 1 of the 1.5'' as an emergency. I would think having both of my 1.5'' occupied as emergency would be overkill, since a single 1.5'' hole should be able to support the 2 1'' holes flow if that ever were necessary.

As mentioned above, I'm trying to generate at least a flow of 2,000-2,500 gph to my sump (which wouldn't be possible with dual Dursos), and would think 2 independent 1'' siphons might get me there, where the 1.5'' open/emergency should solely be able to support that amount should there be some clogging. I know the fine tuning to get both 1'' siphons to balance out might be a pain, but it seems like my best option, no?

With a siphon in each overflow, I shouldn't have to worry about water becoming stagnant either, right? I can then use that remaining 1.5'' hole for my return line, so I don't have to come over the back of the tank, since it's against the wall. Thanks ahead of time for feedback.

 

[uncleof6]

Well your math is fairly close. With 2 - 1" you will get better than 3000 gph with a 5' drop. 2 foot drop would be 1500 gph per..... 1.5" will do better than 3 grand as well @ 5'. You said open/emergency: Don't do it. Keep it dry.

I am not sure I would be comfortable with this setup though. Big tank.

 

[HowieUMD]

Well your math is fairly close. With 2 - 1" you will get better than 3000 gph with a 5' drop. 2 foot drop would be 1500 gph per..... 1.5" will do better than 3 grand as well @ 5'. You said open/emergency: Don't do it. Keep it dry.

I am not sure I would be comfortable with this setup though. Big tank.

Thank you. So I'll do it as a dry emergency on one of the 1.5"s instead of open/emergency.

Are you saying not comfortable as in unsafe/possibility of a flood or uncomfortable in terms not enough flow? I'm going to add 2 Vortech MP60's to each end to generate more turnover if that's the case.

 

[SGT_York]

Howie, I'd never recommend a siphon in an overflow without an emergency. Why can't you run the return behind or aside the tank? Use the 1" for siphons and 1.5's as emergencies?

 

[vai6921]

hi,

What kind of substrate is that? Seems super fine, nothing that is sold in any of my lfs. Can you please let me know where you purchased that?

Thanks!

Here's a pic of the pipe retainer.

 

[gernby]

What I find flawed about the Herbie and BeanAnimal setups are that they rely on a valve adjustment to tune the siphon. What I've discovered over the past couple weeks of protytoping is that the flow through the valve is pretty inconsistent, so the amount of flow through the open channel is very inconsistent. I believe this is due to the turbulance caused by the valve, which causes varying amounts of head loss depending on many parameters (temperature, etc.)

I've found ways to help reduce the inconsistency, but not eliminate it. However, I believe a totally different approach will prove to more consistent. The prototype that I'm building riow will just have 2 drains at full siphon. These drains will each be larger than needed to handle all of the flow, in case the other drain gets clogged. These drains will be T'd together below the tank, where they will flow into an even larger pipe that is WAY bigger than needed.

The large drain will travel mostly horizontal to a shelf where the sump resides. The sump will essentially be "next to" instead of "under" the aquarium. Even though the sump is not below the aquarium, head pressure caused by the difference in water levels between the overflow chamber and sump will force flow through the pipes (which are at full siphon and totally silent).

With this setup, the flow and water levels in the overflow chamber and sump are controlled by fine tuning the height of the sump instead of the position of a valve. The math is extensive, but I've calculated that with my 1800 gph system, The bottom of my sump will need to be slightly higher than the bottom of my aquarium.

In order to create an "Emergency" path, in case something gets clogged near the outlet of the siphon into the sump (that's the only place where it could happen), I will have a large external open channel fed by the large horizontal drain pipe. In the event that the outlets become partially or totally clogged at the sump, the open channel will be at the right height and size to flow the full flow of the system by raising the water level in the overflow chamber a few inches.

Thoughts? (flame suit on)

Here's a diagram. (Note that my actual implimentation will have 2 drain holes (1.5") and 3 primary siphon outlets (3/4"))

A - Water level in the sump
B - Water level in the overflow (B-A = head pressure)
C - Water level in aquarium
D - Primary drain at full siphon with valve fully open (much smaller diameter piping based on calculated rates)
E - Large emergency drain (full siphon to the large open channel just above B)
F - Purge valve to sewer.

 

[BeanAnimal]

What I find flawed about the Herbie and BeanAnimal setups are that they rely on a valve adjustment to tune the siphon. What I've discovered over the past couple weeks of protytoping is that the flow through the valve is pretty inconsistent, so the amount of flow through the open channel is very inconsistent. I believe this is due to the turbulance caused by the valve, which causes varying amounts of head loss depending on many parameters (temperature, etc.)

When built as published, the (my) standpipe system is EXTREMELY stable and self adjusting over a very wide range of flows. To that end there are literally hundreds (thousands) of people using the system worldwide, without problems or the need to make regular adjustments.

As stated numerous times, the GOAL of this design was to publish a standpipe system that is easy to implement, that is safe and stable, quiet and self adjusting, all over an extremely wide range of flow rates WITH NO NEEED FOR MODIFICATION in design or parts scaling. It has been clearly pointed out that just about ANY system can be purpose engineered to excel at a given task. Aquarium overflows are no different. This goal here was not to engineer the end-all, be-all overflow for every situation. It was to publish an extremely safe and easy to implement design that would fit the needs of a large number of hobbyists. Got a sump on the other side of the room? This is not the design. Got a sump at the same height as the display? Got a nano with a 100 GPH pump, This is not the design, etc.

As for your design... you are starting to go down the path of semantics, not physics. Your "smaller pipe" and my "valve" both do the same thing, they limit the rate of flow and do so according to the same basic laws of physics and can be predicted by the Bernoulli equation. Your Hartford loop and my open channel do the same thing and only differ in semantics as well, they both act as a spillway to handle any flow in excess of the tuned siphon.

Respectfully, this thread is not about overflow designs in general or the development of new designs. It is dedicated to the goal of supporting those who use the standpipe design I published. In that context, your efforts would be better suited to their own thread. Thanks for understanding.

 

[gernby]

When built as published, the (my) standpipe system is EXTREMELY stable and self adjusting over a very wide range of flows. To that end there are literally hundreds (thousands) of people using the system worldwide, without problems or the need to make regular adjustments.

As stated numerous times, the GOAL of this design was to publish a standpipe system that is easy to implement, that is safe and stable, quiet and self adjusting, all over an extremely wide range of flow rates WITH NO NEEED FOR MODIFICATION in design or parts scaling. It has been clearly pointed out that just about ANY system can be purpose engineered to excel at a given task. Aquarium overflows are no different. This goal here was not to engineer the end-all, be-all overflow for every situation. It was to publish an extremely safe and easy to implement design that would fit the needs of a large number of hobbyists. Got a sump on the other side of the room? This is not the design. Got a sump at the same height as the display? Got a nano with a 100 GPH pump, This is not the design, etc.

As for your design... you are starting to go down the path of semantics, not physics. Your "smaller pipe" and my "valve" both do the same thing, they limit the rate of flow and do so according to the same basic laws of physics and can be predicted by the Bernoulli equation. Your Hartford loop and my open channel do the same thing and only differ in semantics as well, they both act as a spillway to handle any flow in excess of the tuned siphon.

Respectfully, this thread is not about overflow designs in general or the development of new designs. It is dedicated to the goal of supporting those who use the standpipe design I published. In that context, your efforts would be better suited to their own thread. Thanks for understanding.

I mean no disrespect at all, and am simply posting in this thread, since I believe it represents the current "state of the art" for aquarium drains.

However, my topic is on topic with your thread, since I'm proposing an enhancement (actually two) to your design. As an engineer and software developer, I totally understand your resistance to it, but every design can be improved.

That said, I know many proposed designs fail, so it wouldn't surprise me if mine does too. I would just like to discuss any reasons why the modifications to your strategy wouldn't work.

I totally understand your point about different applications requiring different designs, and realize that I might have combined too many things in the same post. I didn't mean to say that my strategy needs to be performed with a side-by-side arrangement. I think it would work just as well with the sump located below.

Enhancement 1:
Instead of using a valve to adjust the flow through the siphon, which I believe causes much greater instability in flow with varying conditions, I believe it would be better to focus more on the diameter of the piping and the amount of head pressure it will service. I believe flow at full siphon through a constant diameter pipe will fluctuate less than it would through a partially closed valve. After reading about flow calculations through all the different types of fittings, I think this is pretty solid. Of course, I'm willing to be wrong about it.

Obviously, the full siphon would still need to be adjustable, but I believe that that could be achieved by adjusting the relative water levels between the overflow and sump in some way.

Enhancement 2:
While I agree that it's important to have a dedicated (dry) emergency drain, I don't see any reason why the 2 wet drains need to have 2 separate holes. Why drill 1 hole for a dedicated siphon and another hole for a dedicated open channel, when the siphon and open channel can share a hole?

Again, I mean no disrespect. I'm just posting in your thread in order to have the same type of discussion you received by posting in Herbie's thread 8 years ago. I know there are probably thousands of people that have been using your design for years without any trouble. Of course, I'm sure there are many thousands that have had success with Herbies and Durso's. My Durso has run safely for over 9 years (noisily). I'm just trying to catch up on all the technical advancements that have occurred before I transfer everything from that 9 year old reef into a new reef in a new house. :wave:

 

[BeanAnimal]

I mean no disrespect at all, and am simply posting in this thread, since I believe it represents the current "state of the art" for aquarium drains.

However, my topic is on topic with your thread, since I'm proposing an enhancement (actually two) to your design. As an engineer and software developer, I totally understand your resistance to it, but every design can be improved.

Again, in the kindest way, I am not looking for enhancements. The standpipe design is stable as published and this thread is dedicated to the support of that design. That is, I am not looking for improvements or enhancements as I am happy with the current state of the system. I am not at all opposed to a conversation regarding standpipe design, I would just prefer not to clutter this thread with that discussion. It is already hard enough for folks to follow along and find what they need

That said, I know many proposed designs fail, so it wouldn't surprise me if mine does too. I would just like to discuss any reasons why the modifications to your strategy wouldn't work.

It is not that I am opposed to the conversation but given the point made above and the purpose of this thread, I would prefer a different venue.

I totally understand your point about different applications requiring different designs, and realize that I might have combined too many things in the same post. I didn't mean to say that my strategy needs to be performed with a side-by-side arrangement. I think it would work just as well with the sump located below.

My point was that my design works for the purpose I created it for. What you are proposing as "your" design my be workable, but it is not targeted at the same design criteria I worked under.

Enhancement 1:

Instead of using a valve to adjust the flow through the siphon, which I believe causes much greater instability in flow with varying conditions, I believe it would be better to focus more on the diameter of the piping and the amount of head pressure it will service. I believe flow at full siphon through a constant diameter pipe will fluctuate less than it would through a partially closed valve. After reading about flow calculations through all the different types of fittings, I think this is pretty solid. Of course, I'm willing to be wrong about it.

In context to the point I made above. It is not that you are wrong ,it is that the resulting system falls well outside of what I designed for

1. First a point; My design as published does not exhibit instability in varying conditions. In fact it is rock stable over a wide range of flows and that was part of the design criteria. I have only ever had to adjust my siphon when I have changed return pumps. (4 times in 8 years)
2. A pipe diameter "fixed" to tune the siphon will only be "tuned" over a small range of flows, missing a major point in my design criteria.
3. Pipe diameter for said "fixed" tuned siphon will need to be calculated by the end user via formula, trial and error, or both. This misses another major point in the design criteria.
4. The system "as built" you propose is for all intensive purposes hard set to a fixed flow rate, negating the ability alter system flow as needed or desired over time. Another design criteria missed.

So the design is not "wrong" but it is not an enhancement to the system I published when the context if what I published is considered.

Obviously, the full siphon would still need to be adjustable, but I believe that that could be achieved by adjusting the relative water levels between the overflow and sump in some way.

Sure, but again we are deviating from the goal of the system as I designed it. We are now adjusting head levels to adjust siphon flow rates instead of simply adjusting the orifice in the standpipe.

So again, a system can be engineered to accomplish a task in many ways. My goal was to create an ultra flexible system of fixed design (one size fits all if you will), that's performance is predictable over a wide range of flows while maintaining silence and ease of implementation without the need for calculation or trial and error. Given a certain flow rate, head height and safety goal, I am sure a more elegant system could be engineered to fit that fixed solution. That (again) is outside of the scope of this design and this thread

Enhancement 2:

While I agree that it's important to have a dedicated (dry) emergency drain, I don't see any reason why the 2 wet drains need to have 2 separate holes. Why drill 1 hole for a dedicated siphon and another hole for a dedicated open channel, when the siphon and open channel can share a hole?

From the perspective or normal mode operation, the placement of the "spillway" is a matter of semantics. From the safety standpoint, the third standpipe functions as a full capacity siphon with a dedicated entry. Combining the two would require the capacity of the single bulkhead to be twice that of my design, so again in essence a matter of semantics when the fail-safes are ignored.

You still need the three standpipes, you are just fiddling with the size of the intake and the location of the 3rd standpipe. Complication in the name of simplicity or simplicity in the name of complication

As I mentioned, my skimmer and ATS use a tuned siphon combined with a Hartford loop to maintain silence and safety

Again, I mean no disrespect. I'm just posting in your thread in order to have the same type of discussion you received by posting in Herbie's thread 8 years ago.

FWIW I posted in Herbie's thread because much of the discussion was from a very misinformed perspective regarding the physics of fluid flow and the safety of tuned siphons without backup. I created this thread with my design, so as not to derail Herbie's thread with a different design.

I know there are probably thousands of people that have been using your design for years without any trouble. Of course, I'm sure there are many thousands that have had success with Herbies and Durso's. My Durso has run safely for over 9 years (noisily). I'm just trying to catch up on all the technical advancements that have occurred before I transfer everything from that 9 year old reef into a new reef in a new house. :wave:

As such, my standpipe system may not be a best fit for your design goals. Given the blank slate to work with and the desire to experiment, calculate and tinker, you may well be able to create a simple, elegant and safe overflow system that greatly deviates from my design and better meets your needs.

 

[gernby]

Again, in the kindest way, I am not looking for enhancements. The standpipe design is stable as published and this thread is dedicated to the support of that design. That is, I am not looking for improvements or enhancements as I am happy with the current state of the system. I am not at all opposed to a conversation regarding standpipe design, I would just prefer not to clutter this thread with that discussion. It is already hard enough for folks to follow along and find what they need

:sad2: Wow ... I never saw that coming. I honestly thought you and I would have had a lot in common after reading some of your posts. I also realized today that a huge thing in common between you and I is that I currently "own" the new state of the art in automotive exhaust technology (patent pending), which could be considered a sort of "drain".

Oh well, we don't have to be friends. However, unless there's some rule on ReefCentral about contributors only being allowed to discuss things that the OP wants, I think this thread is the place for me to discuss these 2 enhancements. The 6K+ posts in this thread have already cluttered it up enough that my few posts won't make much difference, right?

Anyway, if you aren't interested in advancement of the art, please just add me to your ignore list. I'm not the type of person that asks people to keep their ideas to themselves just because I feal that things are good enough already or because their ideas don't fullfill my original vision or goals.

 

[gernby]

From the perspective or normal mode operation, the placement of the "spillway" is a matter of semantics. From the safety standpoint, the third standpipe functions as a full capacity siphon with a dedicated entry. Combining the two would require the capacity of the single bulkhead to be twice that of my design, so again in essence a matter of semantics when the fail-safes are ignored.

You still need the three standpipes, you are just fiddling with the size of the intake and the location of the 3rd standpipe. Complication in the name of simplicity or simplicity in the name of complication

I meant to comment on this too, since I believe this is completely incorrect, and seems to be the only reason why anyone would still consider running a Herbie instead of a BeanAnimal. If your design could be done with 2 holes, do you think anyone would run a Herbie? There seems to be a lot of people that would LOVE to have enough holes to do a BeanAnimal, but they only have enough for a Herbie...

Well, I believe the simple combination of the full siphon and external open channel combined in 1 hole with the second hole dedicated as an emergency siphon is the solution to that problem. Surely you would agree that most drains are large enough that the full siphon and secondary open channel could co-exist.

Is it "semantics" that so many people are running Herbies because they thought that was the best they could do with 2 drain holes?

 

[uncleof6]

hi,

What kind of substrate is that? Seems super fine, nothing that is sold in any of my lfs. Can you please let me know where you purchased that?

Thanks!

Looks like oolitic aragonite to me, available just about anywhere that actually caters to salt water. Probably the best substrate to use, because particulate matter has a hard time penetrating the interstial space.

 

[uncleof6]

However, unless there's some rule on ReefCentral about contributors only being allowed to discuss things that the OP wants...

Anyway, if you aren't interested in advancement of the art, please just add me to your ignore list.

No rule other than simple common courtesy.

I am an engineer as well, but I got past the "if it ain't broke, play with it until it does break," a long time ago, so—OK!

 

[saintsnsinners]

Any photos of in-tank bean systems? Looking to set up a 60 cube and want all plumbing to go through the bottom to the tank. I'll build a false wall that will act as an overflow. It will have 2 - 3/4 returns and a 3/4 cl with 1 intake and 2 returns. So just with all that I am looking at 5 - 3/4 holes in the glass. All 4 returns will come out of the false wall via bulkheads. Would like to add a bean but don't know if that would be too many holes. Tank is 24 wide.

I could do a 1.5" durso without a problem, but I thought I'd try something I've never done before.