Splitting/Teeing a Siphon Drain
- Thread starter agsprat
- Start date
scbrooks87
New member
The only problem with that is it eliminates the benefits of going skimmer-->return<--Fuge.
If you feed from return line then you're only getting skimmed water to the fuge, and recirculated the fuge water over and over, people mostly do this if their overflow can't handle the return pump's full power...
I'm not sure how to solve the problem with "teeing" your drain line for the bean system... Maybe just use your open channel pipe to go into the fuge to get display water directly to the fuge at a low flow speed...
Good luck!
This is exactly what I was thinking of doing!
scbrooks87
New member
I am planning to do this, even though my system is skimmer--->fuge--->return, I dont think that my skimmer can handle the full volume of water coming from the DT anyways, so I will give the skimmer section all the siphon water, then use the open channel into the fuge, so that way, any way you slice it, I'll be getting "dirty" water to the fuge...
uncleof6
Active member
1) There is absolutely no advantage to feeding the fuge from a drain line. The skimmer removes nothing that has any usefulness to a fuge. Even if the skimmer DID remove useful material, far more water goes right past the skimmer without being treated, regardless of flow rate, so it would make absolutely no difference. Skimmer function is far more complex, and specific than the simplistic myths concerning them.
IF you are recirculating water back to your sump, because your pump overpowers your drain system, redesign your drain system-- the increased flow rate WILL benefit your system, or use a smaller pump. It is a rediculous waste to send it back to the sump. On the other hand, if you are power feeding a "fuge" it is not a waste, so the line of thinking is different.
The basic thing that needs to be understood is: These types of filtration is CUMULATIVE, not instantaneous. The skimmer will not remove ALL (and in fact it will only remove roughly 30 or so % of the dissolved organic compounds total) in a single pass. Neither will a "fuge" utilize all the nitrates, phosphates in one pass either-- no matter how slow the flow. It does not work that way. This is not an advertisement for recirculating skimmers (a waste of money IMO) or anything else. It is simply stating that such things do not hinder the cumulative affect.
Slowly, it is coming to be known that it is not so wise to use valves in an open channel (durso, stockman, etc type) drain. Such restrictions cause turbulence in the drain, which is by design problematic to begin with. To split a line you need valves in it.
With a siphon, it is a bit different, but I have not split a siphon line, using beans system. (can't think of a good reason to mess with the drain lines to begin with) The results may be unpredictable. If you need to take the "fuge" out of the system for whatever reason, it will mess with the rest of the system. Feeding from the return line, allows taking the "fuge" offline, without affecting the rest of the system. It is a line of thinking that says an accessory should be fed and controllable without affecting the rest of the system-- same as a skimmer, reactor, chiller, etc. Ok now that I said it three different ways............
Jim
IF you are recirculating water back to your sump, because your pump overpowers your drain system, redesign your drain system-- the increased flow rate WILL benefit your system, or use a smaller pump. It is a rediculous waste to send it back to the sump. On the other hand, if you are power feeding a "fuge" it is not a waste, so the line of thinking is different.
The basic thing that needs to be understood is: These types of filtration is CUMULATIVE, not instantaneous. The skimmer will not remove ALL (and in fact it will only remove roughly 30 or so % of the dissolved organic compounds total) in a single pass. Neither will a "fuge" utilize all the nitrates, phosphates in one pass either-- no matter how slow the flow. It does not work that way. This is not an advertisement for recirculating skimmers (a waste of money IMO) or anything else. It is simply stating that such things do not hinder the cumulative affect.
Slowly, it is coming to be known that it is not so wise to use valves in an open channel (durso, stockman, etc type) drain. Such restrictions cause turbulence in the drain, which is by design problematic to begin with. To split a line you need valves in it.
With a siphon, it is a bit different, but I have not split a siphon line, using beans system. (can't think of a good reason to mess with the drain lines to begin with) The results may be unpredictable. If you need to take the "fuge" out of the system for whatever reason, it will mess with the rest of the system. Feeding from the return line, allows taking the "fuge" offline, without affecting the rest of the system. It is a line of thinking that says an accessory should be fed and controllable without affecting the rest of the system-- same as a skimmer, reactor, chiller, etc. Ok now that I said it three different ways............
Jim
scbrooks87
New member
I wasnt saying to valve the open channel Jim, just to have the open channel go directly to the fuge... But if it doesnt matter either way (which is entirely possible, im still learning too) then feed it from the drain lol.
Jim knows more than I so take his advice over mine :thumbsup:
-Scott
Jim knows more than I so take his advice over mine :thumbsup:
-Scott
uncleof6
Active member
You absolutely need NO drain line going to your fuge section, and with the water level difference between the siphon outlet, and the open channel outlet, being in the "fuge" it will affect the operation of the drain system. (whether the affect would be good or bad ehhh don't care)
You already have 100% of your water going through the fuge, and there is no point to that to begin with, however, why mess with the drain system at all, since all the water goes to the "fuge" anyway?
You don't need "dirty" water in the fuge. Water that goes through the skimmer, is just as "dirty" for purposes of the "fuge" as water that goes right past the skimmer.
It is not you Mr. Brooks
you are "new" to this-- and trying to learn. It is the people "teaching" that spread this stuff, that have no concept of what a skimmer does, how it does it-- and what it does NOT do. Concurrently, they have even LESS knowledge of marine and/or bio chemistry..... ah heck-- let's add physics to the list also..... 
Jim
scbrooks87
New member
You absolutely need NO drain line going to your fuge section, and with the water level difference between the siphon outlet, and the open channel outlet, being in the "fuge" it will affect the operation of the drain system. (whether the affect would be good or bad ehhh don't care)
You already have 100% of your water going through the fuge, and there is no point to that to begin with, however, why mess with the drain system at all, since all the water goes to the "fuge" anyway?
You don't need "dirty" water in the fuge. Water that goes through the skimmer, is just as "dirty" for purposes of the "fuge" as water that goes right past the skimmer.
It is not you Mr. Brooks
Jim
Thanks for the Advice Jim, I'll just run the bean system to the first section and let it roll from there, it's only gonna be about 300gph anyway, not a hugh amount of flow hehe.
Great advice Jim! Thanks for clearning it up. Certainly makes things easier to set up when thinking of it your way. I've always wondered why your fuge water and your skimmer water should be seperated, but have always thought someone else knows better than me. I'm still learning too! The one i have right now is inline (skimmer, fuge, return.) I think i might just keep it that way.
uncleof6
Active member
It works, no saying that skimmer>fuge>return does not work. Separating the skimmer and 'fuge' by the return section allows a slight volume increase for the fuge (the baffle can be higher,) and is a bit more functional in terms of accessory filtration, when fed by the return line.
Jim
scbrooks87
New member
Must say the AquaC Urchin skimmer im using makes that a bit easier on me with the baffle heights, I only have to elevate it about 2 inches and can keep a 13" baffle height through the sump...
I know it isnt the best skimmer ever by any means, but hey... It's exit area is pretty high up lol.
-Scott
I know it isnt the best skimmer ever by any means, but hey... It's exit area is pretty high up lol.
-Scott
Part of the problem is a refuse to get a new skimmer so want to reuse the AquaC remora I have hanging on my tank right now. But want to hang it off the fuge. So I got to fit a pump in my fuge and I'm a stickler for maximizing real estate in my fuges. Trying to fit a Mag 5, a Mag 7 and another chiller pump while having the biggest fuge possible takes some tweaking so I'm investigating ways to divide it up. Any thoughts on splitting the tank down the middle? With fuge in front and pumps in rear?
Attachments
my fuge setup I ran from a powerhead pumping water from near where the drain line deposited in the sump to the refuge and then water would gravity flow back into the sump via a standpipe drain in the fuge. It worked well and kept both my return line and drain lines running wide open so I did not have to worry about tweaking valves and adjusting flows.
