Silent and Failsafe Overflow System

Not sure I have the space to run 1" above the bulkhead because the overflow box is fairly small. I could go 1" below that bulkhead if it would really make a difference but I've always been told opening the restriction after said restriction does nothing (other references, not aquarium drains). Of course, this would require me to order new red furniture grade PVC :lol:

The flow is limited by the size of the bulkhead and the length of the drop, to a maximum theoretical gph. The pipe size involves friction loss. The larger the pipe, the less friction loss, and the closer you get to the theoretical maximum. It is not possible to reach the max theoretical however, as it assumes no pipe. E.G. no friction losses.

That said, 3/4" pipe really does not have a practical application for marine systems. The friction loss is excessive, and the risk of plugging is too high. Minimum that should be considered is 1", when discussing siphon systems. When discussing nanos, for which is siphon system is really not warranted, 1.25" pipe on 1" bulkheads should be considered the bare minimum practical application.
 
Hey All!! Sorry this is my first post and I am not sure how to start this??

Hey All!! Sorry this is my first post and I am not sure how to start this??

I have been having trouble with my new 150 cube build in regards to the overflow discharge in the sump. I didn't know how to start a thread or post a new question so I am very sorry if this the wrong way to go about it. Anyways I have a reef ready marine land 150 cube with stock overflow. when the plumbing discharges in the sump bubble tower/filter socks it looks like its boiling and the micro bubbles are INSANE!!! I tried a few quick fixes but none seem to stay. The last was to extend the the piping almost down to the bottom of sump put a tee on it, then add a 90 pointing opposite direction so the water discharges away from baffles. then add another 90 going up with a long piece of pvc extending out of the water as like a air vent/bleed i guess you could call it.
It worked great for 10 minutes then i had to shut off return pump and when i restarted it the boiling came back. I am sooo frustrated and don't know where to turn to get the advice I need so i am starting here. And again sorry for bum rushing this thread!!!! Any help suggestions would be greatly appreciated and many thanks in advance!!! Please help reefer in crisis!!!! haha
 
I have been having trouble with my new 150 cube build in regards to the overflow discharge in the sump. I didn't know how to start a thread or post a new question so I am very sorry if this the wrong way to go about it. Anyways I have a reef ready marine land 150 cube with stock overflow. when the plumbing discharges in the sump bubble tower/filter socks it looks like its boiling and the micro bubbles are INSANE!!! I tried a few quick fixes but none seem to stay. The last was to extend the the piping almost down to the bottom of sump put a tee on it, then add a 90 pointing opposite direction so the water discharges away from baffles. then add another 90 going up with a long piece of pvc extending out of the water as like a air vent/bleed i guess you could call it.
It worked great for 10 minutes then i had to shut off return pump and when i restarted it the boiling came back. I am sooo frustrated and don't know where to turn to get the advice I need so i am starting here. And again sorry for bum rushing this thread!!!! Any help suggestions would be greatly appreciated and many thanks in advance!!! Please help reefer in crisis!!!! haha


We really have no idea what you are running. Can you provide pics? Boiling isn't necessarily bad, and the bubbles are due to air in your drains. But it is hard to say what you problem is as we are not sure what you are trying to do...
 
I have been having trouble with my new 150 cube build in regards to the overflow discharge in the sump. I didn't know how to start a thread or post a new question so I am very sorry if this the wrong way to go about it. Anyways I have a reef ready marine land 150 cube with stock overflow. when the plumbing discharges in the sump bubble tower/filter socks it looks like its boiling and the micro bubbles are INSANE!!! I tried a few quick fixes but none seem to stay. The last was to extend the the piping almost down to the bottom of sump put a tee on it, then add a 90 pointing opposite direction so the water discharges away from baffles. then add another 90 going up with a long piece of pvc extending out of the water as like a air vent/bleed i guess you could call it.
It worked great for 10 minutes then i had to shut off return pump and when i restarted it the boiling came back. I am sooo frustrated and don't know where to turn to get the advice I need so i am starting here. And again sorry for bum rushing this thread!!!! Any help suggestions would be greatly appreciated and many thanks in advance!!! Please help reefer in crisis!!!! haha

Welcome to Reef Central!

This thread is for the bean animal overflow; Please start a new thread and re-post your question as a new thread; that will keep this thread from getting (even more) cluttered and make it easier for people to help you with your problem.
 
I have been having trouble with my new 150 cube build in regards to the overflow discharge in the sump. I didn't know how to start a thread or post a new question so I am very sorry if this the wrong way to go about it. Anyways I have a reef ready marine land 150 cube with stock overflow. when the plumbing discharges in the sump bubble tower/filter socks it looks like its boiling and the micro bubbles are INSANE!!! I tried a few quick fixes but none seem to stay. The last was to extend the the piping almost down to the bottom of sump put a tee on it, then add a 90 pointing opposite direction so the water discharges away from baffles. then add another 90 going up with a long piece of pvc extending out of the water as like a air vent/bleed i guess you could call it.
It worked great for 10 minutes then i had to shut off return pump and when i restarted it the boiling came back. I am sooo frustrated and don't know where to turn to get the advice I need so i am starting here. And again sorry for bum rushing this thread!!!! Any help suggestions would be greatly appreciated and many thanks in advance!!! Please help reefer in crisis!!!! haha

Start Here.

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=344892

Long story short the thread I just linked was the precursor to this one. The original Herbie uses the two bulkheads in the standard marineland overflow using both of them as drains. The newer version called a "Bean Animal" relies on 3 drain lines. You could implement the one in the thread above with little effort. While the one in this thread is a little more robust and safe against leaks, it would require drilling another couple of holes in your tank. Happy reading. If you read both of these you'll be done by summer, although I feel you will get 90% of what you need in the first few pages of both.
 
I don't expect anyone to do any research, as I have tried and haven't come up with anything, but does anyone know how you could use this system on a tank that's already up and running? Any suggestions?
 
I don't expect anyone to do any research, as I have tried and haven't come up with anything, but does anyone know how you could use this system on a tank that's already up and running? Any suggestions?

Probably not. Not much you can do with a running tank in the first place, without shutting it down, and emptying it. Most tanks would require modifications to run this system, and that is not going to happen with the tank in service with livestock.

I have done it, but I don't recommend others try it.
 
Last edited:
Probably not. Not much you can do with a running tank in the first place, without shutting it down, and emptying it. Most tanks would require modifications to run this system, and that is not going to happen with the tank in service with livestock.

I have done it, but I don't recommend others try it.


Yea, that's what I was afraid of. Well, guess I'll do it for my 90g that I will be starting in the next couple of months.
 
I have been building an overflow box over on the acrylics page and Turbo said I have an issue with the height of my plumbing.

I see running it in two possible configurations:

This one uses a down turned P-trap on the siphon line like the traditional system shown on this thread. I haven't drilled for my vent in the open line yet, but it would be parallel with the top of the emergency, so that it would create a full siphon on the open leg in the event of a line clogging. I know this picture shows the plumbing too high in the box and that I would need to get smooth bulkhead fittings in order to lower the running level of the water in the system to make it safe.

a>


The second system would remove all the plumbing from the siphon line so that the box would drain completely during a power outage and upon restart would slowly fill back up until the water started pouring back through the open channel. Doing it this way, I could use the lower p-trap as my open drain, and chop my emergency off so that it is lower in the tank.

a>


I really like the idea of the second system because it does away with any start up issues related to purging of the siphon line or anything like that. The only concern that was brought to my attention would be that the siphon line might draw down air from the surface like a bathtub drain does when the water starts to run low. I plan on running around 1200-1500 GPH through it. Ideally I want the water level in the boxes to run about 3/4" to 1" below the weir in my box. That would make the running level about 2 inches from the top of the box. Is that something that would make it unsafe or is that within the envelope to give the emergency enough head room to kick in during a main line clogging? Obviously, I will do some trials on the system before I set it up, but was just looking to see what the resident gurus think, and if there are any other aspects I have overlooked.
 
I have been building an overflow box over on the acrylics page and Turbo said I have an issue with the height of my plumbing.

I see running it in two possible configurations:

Looks like a flood waiting to happen to me. But folks are doing their own thing, deviating from the design, and they are welcome to do so. We cannot test each idea that comes along for flaws and possible issues. We would spend all our time testing these concepts and have no time for anything else.

The box is too small to start with. This type of system (internal/external) was designed 5 years ago. The basic layout and dimensions have been published in this thread several times. It was intended for a rimless tank, that has an external box that is 8.5" tall, and even with the top of the tank. There are no bulkheads between the internal and external. The system worked flawlessly. After all the fabrication work that went into it, the results where not worth the effort required to get there, and had I to do it all over again, I would not have bothered. It just is not worth it, and the goal (to save a couple inches at the top inside the tank) is rather ridiculous. In a nano tank where it would make a difference, this type of system (siphon) is a waste of time.

Reef savvy took the design, and chopped it up, married it up with a Glass-Holes type overflow, stuffed it in boxes that are too small, and folks are trying to follow suit. Very convenient; problem is, there are very few that actually KNOW how this system is supposed to work, as evidenced by the volumes of repetitive/identical issues and questions concerning the system, incorrect responses, and Google is not much help. I am thinking beyond RC, in case any are inclined to take that personally. You (collective) change the design relationships, and you (collective) can be fairly certain it is not going to work as it is supposed to. The trend is not moving forward, it is moving backwards to the reef ready line of thinking this system was meant to make obsolete. One of the larger reasons this system exists.

Images:

The first system does not have room to get the proper head height to start the system. The water would flood out of the box.

The second system is not going to work properly either.

Both systems would flood out of the box, before the open channel tripped to siphon, if the open channel needed to trip due to a failure/blockage.

Anything will drain water. Whether or not it will do so as it should, is another story altogether. This system was designed, built, and documented to take the guess work/thought out of the equation. 1 size fits most all situations, and it works out of the box. The only complications being those created by the end users themselves. :)
 
Uncle, I didn't know you published such a thing back a few years ago I will have to go back and look for it. But to address a few things:

Why does an external box need to be large? Isn't it possible for everything to operate properly if it's designed right? The ones that I have made work pretty much flawlessly. I agree that you need to understand the basics of the system and set it up right, you're good. The internal/external box is a design that has it's place, specifically for people who have a rimmed tank and don't want a large internal overflow box that blocks a lot of light.

1) top of ext box must be at or above the rim of the tank.

2) pass-through bulkheads must be placed such that they are submerged on both sides at all times (usually this means at the lowest point in the box) for reduction of bubbles and silent operation.

3) the external box must either A) use slip-on-flage-side bulkheads to keep the siphon and OC low in the box, or B) be deep enough to allow the plumbing to be low in the box when adapters are taken into account

4) the E-drain in the external box should be no more than 2" below the rim of the box

There are considerations to be made, but even at extremely high flow rates, a reduced size external box is perfectly fine.

Flow is not hampered by using pass through bulkheads. 2" bulkheads are 2.5+ ID and using 2 of them, zero issues with 3000+ GPH

The rate of rise of water in the external box is driven by the size of the box, that is, influent water rate and the footprint of the box, but only to the point where the water level in the box matches the water level in the tank. From that point on, the water rise rate decreases because now the water level in the tank also needs to rise in order for the water in the box to rise. However this is why it is important to have the external box even with the top of the tank - to allow for this "slow down" in the rate of rise in the ext box. This allows for a proper response time out of the 3 pipes on start up and failsafe operation.

Besides that, the only tweak in the pipe setup (that I do) is putting the p-trap or double-elbow as low as possible in the box, and then placing the OC at some point between a) matching the siphon level or b) no higher than top of E pipe (top point of OC double-elbow) and preferrably about 1/2 way between. When done like this, the siphon can be tuned to run full 100% with zero flow in the OC and there is a level range in the external box through which this will continue to operate as such without any flow in the OC, because as the water level rises in the ext box, siphon flow rate increases a bit ot compensate and vice versa. One could argue that the int/ext mod has more flexibility in the operating range because of this.

So what am I missing about the int/ext design that you say means it is a step backwards?
 
Well the box itself is 8 inches tall and sits about a 1/4" below the top of the tank trim. It sounds like from your opinion that my problem is the height of the standpipes. If I switch to slip style bulkheads, I should be able to achieve the amount of clearance I need over the top of the pipes to make it work right, which is inline with what Floyd said. When I was originally designing out the box, i made these to use for the length and width to make the box work and already had the threaded bulkheads from a previous system. This was not meant to be my final design. Thus the questions. I don't take it personally that you think it is a waste of time to modify the original design, or that it isn't worth it. However, I personally don't care for the aesthetics of the original design. The fact that the box would run the entire length of the system is an eye sore for me and this system, while more expensive and complex to make, is worth it to me. I also don't care for the shadow that the original design casts on the back of the tank. Some have tried to alleviate it by making the bottom panel transparent, but it still doesn't appeal to me. Apparently others feel the same way if they keep trying to make them in the "Reef Savvy" style, admittedly unsuccessful in some instances for lack of understanding of the drainage system. Just because the original design is perfectly functional doesn't mean it meets the criteria of "form." Either way, I appreciate you taking the time to give your expertise and answer my questions.
 
The internal/external box is a design that has it's place, specifically for people who have a rimmed tank and don't want a large internal overflow box that blocks a lot of light.

That is the step backwards, to a far less efficient design in areas that really count, to compensate for a rather ridiculous "loss of light" concern, if you know anything about how light actually behaves in water. The light loss is insignificant at the very worst, and there should not be anything below the overflow that would require light, in the first place. Follow the advice for flow characteristics that concern NOT having anything within 3 - 4" of the tank walls. The same with folks wanting to remove the 12" front to back brace on 120s in particular. Sure mess with the integrity of the tank, to save an insignificant amount of light loss.

The one I built had a 4.5" x 3.375" (height x width) internal. No teeth, full width. I have pushed it to 5k, on a 325 gallon tank. Normal operation is ~3k. It can be done, it can be done right and kept within the design criteria. But you need a larger external box, and generally a longer waterfall into the internal, than what I am seeing. The internal boxes I have seen used with this type of system are small, toothed, and a step backwards to corner overflows.
 
For me it isn't the loss of light for the corals, it's the shadow it cast on the rear glass. Also the typical C2C box can be seen from the sides of the tank. If I was doing an in-wall tank I would probably use a C2C will a tank long external box, but mine can be seen from both sides and I don't like being able to see into the box, whether internal or external. My internal box is going to be 42" long for my 48" tank and is mostly smooth. I understand why the height of the external box is important, but why does it need to be larger in length and width? Not trying to be difficult, just trying to learn.
 
Last edited:
If someone could please tell me how to post my own new post/thread on here I will glady be on my way. Sorry for the bother but i have tries numerous times and I can't seem to do it or it blocks me and says I am not signed in when I am already have been signed in. I am super frustrated and just want the micro bubbles to stop. Thx so much, mateo
 
If someone could please tell me how to post my own new post/thread on here I will glady be on my way. Sorry for the bother but i have tries numerous times and I can't seem to do it or it blocks me and says I am not signed in when I am already have been signed in. I am super frustrated and just want the micro bubbles to stop. Thx so much, mateo

You should be able to just click the new thread topic at the top. Did you see my post earlier with the link to the herbie drain setup (post 8130)? It should be all the info you need.
 
For me it isn't the loss of light for the corals, it's the shadow it cast on the rear glass. Also the typical C2C box can be seen from the sides of the tank. If I was doing an in-wall tank I would probably use a C2C will a tank long external box, but mine can be seen from both sides and I don't like being able to see into the box, whether internal or external. My internal box is going to be 42" long for my 48" tank and is mostly smooth. I understand why the height of the external box is important, but why does it need to be larger in length and width? Not trying to be difficult, just trying to learn.

You have a decision to make, and it is your decision, not mine. Aesthetics vs function and system health, in terms of an internal box. As far as the box being seen from the ends of the tank, well folks still flock in droves to spend their money on reef ready tanks, where the end overflow exposure outside the tank is the full height of the tank. The C2C is about function and efficiency, not about what you can or can't see from the ends of the tank.

The light loss from a C2C is insignificant, and the back of the tank being a tiny amount darker, makes we want to ask: what are you looking for back there where nothing should be? I run my lights generally around 6" short at both ends of 6 foot tanks, to make the ends a "darker" area for less "light loving" critters, as well as the back being somewhat subdued. Folks want to paint the backs of their tanks black, to make the back darker, hide pipes etc. That reduces the amount of light in the tank more than a slight shadow from an overflow box. Where you put the lights makes a difference as well, all of it makes a difference. It is an aquarium, it is not possible to make it look like a natural ocean, it only makes things hard on you if you try. We don't have the 100,000 gallon luxury of public aquariums where everything is hidden.


The height is pretty much self explanatory. In the conversation 5 years ago, it was make the external tall enough above/below the through holes to give enough vertical adjustment room to get things dialed in. This is called "tuning" the system. The water level on both sides, at the widest part of the bare 3" through holes, (center line) rather than hanging the overflow box off of bulkheads.

Longer in length so you have room in the box, and are not jamming everything together. Length and numbers of holes, make the internal and external act more as one body of water. Width less of an issue. This is becoming a case where folks are just way over thinking things, making things hard on themselves. An 18" external box on a 48" tank rather than a 12" box is a problem because? (numbers pulled at random.)

Folks are not going to notice the OF boxes, or the plumbing if the husbandry of the system is first rate, and the display stuns them into a silent stare. I think that should be the focus, rather than scratching ones head figuring out how small of a foot print can I cram this stuff into. There are advantages and disadvantages to just about everything. It is sorting out what is really important, and what just is not all that important, in terms of system performance.

This thread, and my "job" is to figure out why someones drain system does not work. The list of reasons is very short.
 
Needing some help. I'm reading the thread But WOW its long. I have a 300dd that I'm setting up to replace my 155 bow. My problem is the 300 has corner over flows. I want to do a c2c with a bean, but what size pluming do I use? 1.5" or 2. Can u use two siphons like 1". I want to keep the C2C a slim as possible with out hurting the efficiency. I know that it has been said you can scale up or down, but I have not seen a post that states the flow rate of 1" , 1.25" , 1.5" ,and 2"
 
Pull the corner overflows out, and plug the holes with capped bulkheads.
The width of the C2C is going to be what it is, and if you make it too small, you will regret it. The striving for the ultimate slim C2C saves a couple inches, and frankly it is not worth the work involved. I have done it, I know.

Then one each: 1.5" siphon, 1.5" open channel, 1.5" dry emergency. That is pipe and bulkhead. It may be better to run 1.5" bulkheads and 2" pipe, as there will be less friction loss to battle.

The flow rates, are based on the bulkhead size, to an extent the pipe size (friction loss from max theoretical) and the length of the drop. With each system it will be somewhat different depending. But this thread is riddled with the numbers.

1.5" bulkheads @ 3' drop will be ~4600gph max theoretical. 1" bulkheads same same would be 2041gph, 1.25" bulkheads same same would be 3189gph. You want to target 3k, so the 1" and 1.25" would be too small.
 
Back
Top