davidryder
Claris or Elliot?
BeanAnimal, you're welcome 
Sumps are bad for reefkeeping
- Thread starter kysard1
- Start date
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10380059#post10380059 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by davidryder
BeanAnimal, you're welcome
Speaking of being humbled!
RichConley
New member
David, no properly working skimmer shoudl release microbubbles. Bubbles that escape the skimmer aren't "skimming".
Microbubbles escaping generally means the skimmer isnt pulling enough air (and is moving too much water)
davidryder
Claris or Elliot?
I'm talking about microbubbles inside of the skimmer... I think there was a misunderstanding somewhere.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
I think most of it was covered here...
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=10344565#post10344565 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BeanAnimal
Zero Micro bubbles here... 2000GPH through sump.
No filter socks or other filtration media.
My sump is thriving habitat full of sponges, worms, tube worms, tunicates, snails, starfish, copepods, amphipods, mysis, etc.
Your statements are based on YOUR opinion.
Micro-bubbles (you mean mini-bubbles, as micro bubbles could not be seen) are not a bad thing. You appear to be under the impression that they are harmfull. In YOUR case, if you must turn the light out to see them, then you can not see them during the photoperiod. What exactly is the issue?
Not everybody has the ROOM for a behind the tank sump.
I have a 75 gallon display with AT LEAST another 75 gallons on the sump and above tank refugium. How would you propose that I stuff another 75 gallon tank behind the display? Ohh you advocate a smaller sump? Lets say I can fit 15 gallons in a tall slender "sump" that is directly behind the display and the same height and width.
What do I gain? Slightly less cost to move the water? What else? Nothing!
What do I lose?
I lose 50 pounds of LR.
I lose a backflow area for all of my equipment.
I lose a large habitat for sponges, worms, fanworms, etc.
I lose 50% of my system volume and therefore a LARGE portion of my bio capability.
I lose added chemical the stability that comes from a larger water mass.
I lose the added temperature stability that comes form a larger water mass.
I lose the benefit of being able to do LARGE isolated water changes if need be.
I lose the benefit of having a LARGE evaporation resevoir in case of ATO failure.
Sorry man... your just way off base.
Aquarist007
New member
Amen--please put a sticky on this so it is read first, not last
so it is read first, not last
Aquarist007
New member
My sump is thriving habitat full of sponges, worms, tube worms, tunicates, snails, starfish, copepods, amphipods, mysis, etc.
Your sump or your refugium---and how did you get sponges growing in there--I've got the rest but no sponges.?
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
My sump. The refugium has all that and more
I suppose the sponges came in on some rock. I do not run any lights in the sump... ther eis of course some ambient room light that keeps it dimly illuminated during the day.
I suppose the sponges came in on some rock. I do not run any lights in the sump... ther eis of course some ambient room light that keeps it dimly illuminated during the day.
Aquarist007
New member
I suppose I don't have that variety of pods in my sump because of the uv sterilzer? I wonder if running a uv sterilzer is worth while compared to letting your sump go nature.??
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
I don't think most UVs do much at all. Most are undersized and over fed to be of much use.
My sump appears to have more pods that my refugium (flow maybe?).
I do not profess to have the best answers, nor do I think my system is by any means any better than anybody else's. Actually, I have my share of problems with my setup. Maybe next time around I will change my methodology to incorporate what I have learned from others and my mistakes...
However that methodology will certainly include a very large sump.
My sump appears to have more pods that my refugium (flow maybe?).
I do not profess to have the best answers, nor do I think my system is by any means any better than anybody else's. Actually, I have my share of problems with my setup. Maybe next time around I will change my methodology to incorporate what I have learned from others and my mistakes...
However that methodology will certainly include a very large sump.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
kysard,
I have listed a dozen reasons why your premise outlined in the title of this thread is simply wrong. Many (all?) of the reasons I listed are factual, not opinion. It is your prerogative to value opinion more than fact, I can't stop you.
As for the "blender". I suggest doing a bit more research. The tiny lifeforms go for a ride, they are not blended. Their bodies are small enough that the surface tension of the water helps to protect them instead of tearing them apart. There has been several bit sof research done on exactly this topic... the blender analogy is urban legend.
Regardless, my refugium is ABOVE my display tank and uses gravity to transport it's critters to the display. I do not rely on the copepods or other small animals for any reason other than enjoyment and diversity.
I personally do not believe in below that tank refugia if above the tank realestate is available. Of course in MANY cases the refugia must be incorporated into a below the tank sump. Some refugia is likely better than no refugia.
Sorry man, but your contention that sumps are bad is outright nonsense.
Somebody with the word "engineer" in their title should be able to weigh the logic behind such a statement as you title this thread with. A person who has earned the title "engineer" should be able to differentiate between fact and opinion
I don't doubt that you are capable, but am perplexed as to why you have not applied what you were taught.
A simple list of pros and cons, or a truth table would suffice to help you arrive at a better conclusion.
I have listed a dozen reasons why your premise outlined in the title of this thread is simply wrong. Many (all?) of the reasons I listed are factual, not opinion. It is your prerogative to value opinion more than fact, I can't stop you.
As for the "blender". I suggest doing a bit more research. The tiny lifeforms go for a ride, they are not blended. Their bodies are small enough that the surface tension of the water helps to protect them instead of tearing them apart. There has been several bit sof research done on exactly this topic... the blender analogy is urban legend.
Regardless, my refugium is ABOVE my display tank and uses gravity to transport it's critters to the display. I do not rely on the copepods or other small animals for any reason other than enjoyment and diversity.
I personally do not believe in below that tank refugia if above the tank realestate is available. Of course in MANY cases the refugia must be incorporated into a below the tank sump. Some refugia is likely better than no refugia.
Sorry man, but your contention that sumps are bad is outright nonsense.
Somebody with the word "engineer" in their title should be able to weigh the logic behind such a statement as you title this thread with. A person who has earned the title "engineer" should be able to differentiate between fact and opinion
I don't doubt that you are capable, but am perplexed as to why you have not applied what you were taught.A simple list of pros and cons, or a truth table would suffice to help you arrive at a better conclusion.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
Ohh and one more thing...
If we assume that the pump kills all of the pods... what makes you think that the livestock will not eat them dead? IF they are gound to a pulp, would they not feed the coral as well?
Nonetheless, the pump does not kill anywhere near all of them.
Just more to think about.
If we assume that the pump kills all of the pods... what makes you think that the livestock will not eat them dead? IF they are gound to a pulp, would they not feed the coral as well?
Nonetheless, the pump does not kill anywhere near all of them.
Just more to think about.
seattlerob
Member
Re: Sumps are bad for reefkeeping
Let me break apart the initial post:
The title of this thread, and the author's theory and statement.
Apparently a quote of someone, but no reference to who. Quote has no direct relation to the original statement, because we all know you can run a sump without bioballs or a filter sock.
A statement in the form of a question, but does not support the theory of the original statement (title of thread)
Another statement that does not support the theory of the original statement
Justification on why he uses a filter sock. Also appears to be the way the author is trying to tie filter socks and sumps together. However, as so many people have confirmed from their own experience, there is a way around it...baffles. Also, it appears the author is trying to tie "microbubbles" as a reason by sumps are bad for reefkeeping, which I believe is untrue (it may be aesthetically unpleasing, but not necessarily bad for reefkeeping).
A prediction, with nothing to support it. Purely opinion. Also, if this is what the author truly thinks, then the title of the thread should have been something like "below tank sumps are bad for reefkeeping", because sorry to say that a behind tank sump, or slightly over the tank sump, is still a sump!
An opinion that summarizes the original theory and title of the thread, but there are NO supporting facts provided by the author.
I have to wonder just like Bean how someone with the title of "engineer" could have posted the above. Honestly, the title of your thread should have been "Filter socks are as much of a nitrate factory as bioballs" or "How can I get rid of microbubbles without using a filter sock?", based on the information you provided.
I, like so many people have stated, run an under the tank sump, WITHOUT bioballs or a filtersock (and with no microbubbles). That discredits all the reasons you provided above.
Let me break apart the initial post:
The title of this thread, and the author's theory and statement.
Apparently a quote of someone, but no reference to who. Quote has no direct relation to the original statement, because we all know you can run a sump without bioballs or a filter sock.
A statement in the form of a question, but does not support the theory of the original statement (title of thread)
Another statement that does not support the theory of the original statement
Justification on why he uses a filter sock. Also appears to be the way the author is trying to tie filter socks and sumps together. However, as so many people have confirmed from their own experience, there is a way around it...baffles. Also, it appears the author is trying to tie "microbubbles" as a reason by sumps are bad for reefkeeping, which I believe is untrue (it may be aesthetically unpleasing, but not necessarily bad for reefkeeping).
A prediction, with nothing to support it. Purely opinion. Also, if this is what the author truly thinks, then the title of the thread should have been something like "below tank sumps are bad for reefkeeping", because sorry to say that a behind tank sump, or slightly over the tank sump, is still a sump!
An opinion that summarizes the original theory and title of the thread, but there are NO supporting facts provided by the author.
I have to wonder just like Bean how someone with the title of "engineer" could have posted the above. Honestly, the title of your thread should have been "Filter socks are as much of a nitrate factory as bioballs" or "How can I get rid of microbubbles without using a filter sock?", based on the information you provided.
I, like so many people have stated, run an under the tank sump, WITHOUT bioballs or a filtersock (and with no microbubbles). That discredits all the reasons you provided above.
I am a little dissapointed that the topic has to be degraded to questioning my credentials.
The first thing you learn in fluid dynamics when designing a fluid system is to avoid turbulence
Turbulence can’t be predicted or modeled with equations the way laminar flow can. I am by no means
an expert with reefs, but no one around here is running a moderately sized sump without filter bags
to catch bubbles from the turbulence of the overflow.
You can disagree with me, no problem. I am not insulting your mother so don’t take it personal.
Please keep this thread as a informational discourse,. I have a lot to learn from all of you and don’t
wish to make enemies.
The first thing you learn in fluid dynamics when designing a fluid system is to avoid turbulence
Turbulence can’t be predicted or modeled with equations the way laminar flow can. I am by no means
an expert with reefs, but no one around here is running a moderately sized sump without filter bags
to catch bubbles from the turbulence of the overflow.
You can disagree with me, no problem. I am not insulting your mother so don’t take it personal.
Please keep this thread as a informational discourse,. I have a lot to learn from all of you and don’t
wish to make enemies.
BeanAnimal
Premium Member
1) You have posted your credential for everybody to see.
2) You have posted in a manner that contradicts the very basic fundamentals of the engineering process.
It was a not a personal attack, it was a direct observation and comment of the obvious.
3) What does this have to do with laminar or non laminar flow? We can surely talk about such things, but your statements go way beyond the discussion of the reynolds number associated with an overflow/return combination.
You have focused on filter bags and bubbles. There are dozens of ways to address the problem of the bubbles and/or the flow type. Instead of furthering any meaningful conversation on the subject, you have made an irrelevant conclusion, sumps are bad, and have gone further by trying to say that the life on the sump us useless because the pump is a blender.
Once again, this is not a matter of agreement of disagreement. It is a matter of fact vs opinion. Once again, somebody with your education should be able to easily differentiate between postulate and fact. You should be able to take what is at hand and formulate facts that lead to informed conclusions. You should be able to take a given problem and formulate a solution to the problem from a logical standpoint.
Do not confuse a personal attack with the expectation that you should be able to communicate on a level that coincides with the credentials that you rather publicaly promote.
I am not sure what baffles me more; Your statement that sumps are bad, or you continued insistance that you must use a filter sock to stop bubbles.
I also keep coming back to another point you made. If you must use a flashlight to see the bubbles, then who cares?
Bubbles are part of the natural flow of the reef. Many of the creatures and corals that we keep come from impact zones that are much more bubble laden than our tanks.
Regarding your observations of filter socks: Could it be that the owners of the tanks you have visited need some guidance on how to better configure a sump and/or system methodology?
I could put the same (or even double) the flow through my sump if I shrunk it to as small as 10 gallons. Why? Becuase I have laminar flow feeding my sump from my overflow.
It is also very possible to build a device to elimate the bubbles. The could be a dedicated bubble trap or a pile of live rock.
My system is fed by a full siphon that is backed up (regulated) by a spillway (open channel flow). In addition to the two active overflows, I have a third emergency overflow that will come into play if either (or both) of the main standpipes become clogged.
2) You have posted in a manner that contradicts the very basic fundamentals of the engineering process.
It was a not a personal attack, it was a direct observation and comment of the obvious.
3) What does this have to do with laminar or non laminar flow? We can surely talk about such things, but your statements go way beyond the discussion of the reynolds number associated with an overflow/return combination.
You have focused on filter bags and bubbles. There are dozens of ways to address the problem of the bubbles and/or the flow type. Instead of furthering any meaningful conversation on the subject, you have made an irrelevant conclusion, sumps are bad, and have gone further by trying to say that the life on the sump us useless because the pump is a blender.
Once again, this is not a matter of agreement of disagreement. It is a matter of fact vs opinion. Once again, somebody with your education should be able to easily differentiate between postulate and fact. You should be able to take what is at hand and formulate facts that lead to informed conclusions. You should be able to take a given problem and formulate a solution to the problem from a logical standpoint.
Do not confuse a personal attack with the expectation that you should be able to communicate on a level that coincides with the credentials that you rather publicaly promote.
I am not sure what baffles me more; Your statement that sumps are bad, or you continued insistance that you must use a filter sock to stop bubbles.
I also keep coming back to another point you made. If you must use a flashlight to see the bubbles, then who cares?
Bubbles are part of the natural flow of the reef. Many of the creatures and corals that we keep come from impact zones that are much more bubble laden than our tanks.
Regarding your observations of filter socks: Could it be that the owners of the tanks you have visited need some guidance on how to better configure a sump and/or system methodology?
I could put the same (or even double) the flow through my sump if I shrunk it to as small as 10 gallons. Why? Becuase I have laminar flow feeding my sump from my overflow.
It is also very possible to build a device to elimate the bubbles. The could be a dedicated bubble trap or a pile of live rock.
My system is fed by a full siphon that is backed up (regulated) by a spillway (open channel flow). In addition to the two active overflows, I have a third emergency overflow that will come into play if either (or both) of the main standpipes become clogged.
seattlerob
Member
Have you been reading the replies in this thread? A LOT of people are running a moderately sized sump without filter bags to catch bubbles. Way more people than "no one".
Similar threads
