Sump Diagram, any Flaws?

[JBuffetReefer]

unless your skimmer is kicking out tons of microbubbles, you shouldn't need the extra baffles between the skimmer and fuge.

The people complaining about dirty fuge areas, are you using filter socks? This would help keep your fuge area cleaner.

 

[Michael]

scotts right about the baffles, you only need 1 there, the bubbles will raise and disperse easily and well why complecate it, definately getting there though

 

[chimmike]

big thing about keeping the fuge clean, even with a lot of detritus, is HERMIT CRABS!

They completely eradicated all the detritus in my fuge within a day. Those lil guys are amazing.

 

[EvMiBo]

THREAD HACK

THREAD HACK

Well after reading through this I decided to change plans a bit and make it so the fuge is recirculated by returning water instead of immediately through the intake. Mostly because I don't want to use filter socks.

heres a quick idea:

 

[stingythingy45]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13463375#post13463375 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by shuguley
Funny that this is being discussed, because I just got back from Lowes to buy supplies to re- plumb my setup.

My fuge is currently fed directly by an overflow, and it is a complete dump in there. I am replumbing my setup tonight so that my fuge is fed by my return line. I'll never have another fuge fed directly by an overflow again.

You've been running your tank for 2 months and your fuge is a mess?You're kidding right?:lol:

 

[Tswifty]

Re: THREAD HACK

Re: THREAD HACK

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13469333#post13469333 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by EvMiBo
Well after reading through this I decided to change plans a bit and make it so the fuge is recirculated by returning water instead of immediately through the intake. Mostly because I don't want to use filter socks.

heres a quick idea:

Looks good, except I would place the ball valve on the other side of the T

Also, filter socks aren't to be feared. I swore off them when I started, but recently have began using them again and changing them weekly.

My water is crystal clear, I've had no rise in parameters, and my skimmate production has increased.

 

[shuguley]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13470031#post13470031 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stingythingy45
You've been running your tank for 2 months and your fuge is a mess?You're kidding right?:lol:

Did I miss something? What's funny and why do I have to be kidding?

And where did you get 2 months from? The way I calculate it, it's been 3.5 months. And YES, it was a mess, It's a very small fuge and it was trapping a lot of waste. I think it actually became kind of a nitrate problem rather than a nitrate reducer. I did add some snails and hermits which quickly got rid of the nuisance algae in it, but the detrius build-up was terrible.

I will never plumb another fuge to be fed directly from the DT overflow again. From now on, I am a "return-feed-only" guy.

 

[EvMiBo]

Re: Re: THREAD HACK

Re: Re: THREAD HACK

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13470079#post13470079 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Tswifty8
Looks good, except I would place the ball valve on the other side of the T

Also, filter socks aren't to be feared. I swore off them when I started, but recently have began using them again and changing them weekly.

My water is crystal clear, I've had no rise in parameters, and my skimmate production has increased.

Why on the other side of my T? I want to be able to control the flow going into the fuge to make sure it isn't too turbulent.. right?? I must be missing something

Honestly, I just don't want to have to deal with the filter socks, people say you have to take them out every 2-3 days and if I can go without then I'd rather do that. Maybe I'll give them a try sometime, but can't see myself starting out with them.

 

[sjm817]

I run two large socks and only change them once a week (just like my underwear).

I agree with you on the valve placement.

 

[EvMiBo]

Hmm, maybe I could do it. Another thing to consider

Just change them with a water change if I use em I guess

 

[lilmonster]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13474382#post13474382 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by EvMiBo
Hmm, maybe I could do it. Another thing to consider

Just change them with a water change if I use em I guess

My system has a large sock, and I only change it once a month with water changes.

 

[reeferkeeper]

Re: Re: Re: THREAD HACK

Re: Re: Re: THREAD HACK

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13471132#post13471132 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by EvMiBo
Why on the other side of my T? I want to be able to control the flow going into the fuge to make sure it isn't too turbulent.. right?? I must be missing something

I think the idea is to help better control the amount of water you are circulating through the display tank. If your return pump is returning more water than the DT can remove you can start to close the valve to the DT and put more water to the fuge. In a sense I think the fuge can't have too much water flow but the DT could have.

Something like that anyway. I'm pretty new so it's hard for me to understand and explain.

 

[stingythingy45]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13470555#post13470555 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by shuguley
Did I miss something? What's funny and why do I have to be kidding?

And where did you get 2 months from? The way I calculate it, it's been 3.5 months. And YES, it was a mess, It's a very small fuge and it was trapping a lot of waste. I think it actually became kind of a nitrate problem rather than a nitrate reducer. I did add some snails and hermits which quickly got rid of the nuisance algae in it, but the detrius build-up was terrible.

I will never plumb another fuge to be fed directly from the DT overflow again. From now on, I am a "return-feed-only" guy.

"Added first fish 8/3/2008"...(maybe this)

JMO,but I think anybody that puts a refugium on the return line is missing the whole point of having a refugium in the first place.
The original poster of this thread needs to sit down and think about the reason they want one to begin with,nutrient export,grow pods?What the point of a fug if you already run the water through a skimmer first.........hmmmmmmm?
Is the original poster going to open the stand every other day and feed the creatures residing in the so called refugium?
Why have chaeto there?Just to have green in a tank that will NEVER grow?I hope i'm not sounding condesending here but some things have to be done right.
:lol: :lol:

 

[sjm817]

Why do you think a fuge wont grow pods, export nutrients and grow macro unless being fed directly off a drain? Do you think the water after the skimmer is 100% perfectly clean, devoid of any nutrients? Does a skimmer skim 100% of the water coming down the drain and do it perfectly? Is it possible that macro will filter in a different manner than a skimmer? If it is possible that skimmed water is 100% perfectly clean, why do you need a fuge at all?

As far as macro never growing in a return fed fuge, I pull out 2 - 3 stuffed gallon sized bags a week from my return fed fuge. I do that without having to deal with a fuge that has a pile of muck on the bottom

 

[stingythingy45]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13474812#post13474812 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by sjm817
Why do you think a fuge wont grow pods, export nutrients and grow macro unless being fed directly off a drain? Do you think the water coming from the return is 100% perfectly clean, devoid of any nutrients? Does a skimmer skim 100% of the water coming down the drain and do it perfectly? Is it possible that macro will filter in a different manner than a skimmer?

If the hobbyest has a very efficient skimmer than most of the excess food..ect will be caught in the skimmer.
If the pods have no way of making it back to the display,why have a fug?Think about it,even the last disign from the original poster had a bubble trap beween the fug and return.
BTW.......this is just mt 2 cents.:rolleye1:

 

[Tswifty]

Re: Re: Re: THREAD HACK

Re: Re: Re: THREAD HACK

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13471132#post13471132 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by EvMiBo
Why on the other side of my T? I want to be able to control the flow going into the fuge to make sure it isn't too turbulent.. right?? I must be missing something

How are you forcing water to move down the fuge line in the first design? You assuming the the water will split equally (or greater in favor of the fuge line) at the T, and assume your flow restriction need will be at the fuge entrance.

With a valve on the actual return line you can control flow to your fuge much better by restricting the return line, forcing water back out the fuge line.

Honestly I would plumb it this way.

 

[sjm817]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13474831#post13474831 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stingythingy45
If the hobbyest has a very efficient skimmer than most of the excess food..ect will be caught in the skimmer.
If the pods have no way of making it back to the display,why have a fug?Think about it,even the last disign from the original poster had a bubble trap beween the fug and return.
BTW.......this is just mt 2 cents.:rolleye1:

That is the point. You want the skimmer to get most of the food. It wont if you dump it into the fuge. The fuge cleans up what the skimmer misses by removing N&P.

Pods making it back to the display has nothing to do with it. Either way, they have to make the trip through the return pump unless the fuge is above the display.

 

[sjm817]

Re: Re: Re: Re: THREAD HACK

Re: Re: Re: Re: THREAD HACK

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13474839#post13474839 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Tswifty8
How are you forcing water to move down the fuge line in the first design? You assuming the the water will split equally (or greater in favor of the fuge line) at the T, and assume your flow restriction need will be at the fuge entrance.

With a valve on the actual return line you can control flow to your fuge much better by restricting the return line, forcing water back out the fuge line.

Honestly I would plumb it this way.

Water will take the path of least resistance. With a valve only on the fuge side, you can control the amount going to the fuge. The balance goes to the display. If what is going to the display is too much, adding a valve on that side will allow you to dial that back as well, reducing the total pump output.

 

[stingythingy45]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: THREAD HACK

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: THREAD HACK

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13474881#post13474881 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by sjm817
Water will take the path of least resistance. With a valve only on the fuge side, you can control the amount going to the fuge. The balance goes to the display. If what is going to the display is too much, adding a valve on that side will allow you to dial that back as well, reducing the total pump output.

I like this design.
Scott, I just have a little different idea than you do about what system should get first crack at the water to filter it.
My refugium takes a portion directly from the overflow,and that works for me.I'm not sure why some folks are complaining abour"a mess".If you have chaeto in a fug. it's all ready a mess IMO.
That stuff breaks up and covers the bottom of the fug anyways.
I just like the idea of excess food going to the fug first rather than the mechanical filtration.

 

[EvMiBo]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13474881#post13474881 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by sjm817
Water will take the path of least resistance. With a valve only on the fuge side, you can control the amount going to the fuge. The balance goes to the display. If what is going to the display is too much, adding a valve on that side will allow you to dial that back as well, reducing the total pump output.

So scott, does that mean you're supporting the double ball valve on the return line, or only one? I feel like you validated both sort of..

I thought 1 valve made sense because water would take the path of least resistance, like you said.. Assuming I only have 1 valve after the T on the fuge side twisted at 50%, the DT is actually getting ~75% of the water from the pump due to water taking the path of least resistance. Having 2 valves doesn't make sense to me on the return in this specific design because I feel it's unnecessary and that the flow can be controlled by 1 valve in the end. I like how you kept the main return line vertical for a longer period though Tswifty, that seems more efficient.

I honestly think this would work better, I'm not an expert, or a plumber but just seems like I don't need to be restricting water to my DT with another valve when 1 can control the flow.