Edwardw771
NJRC Member
Holy book. You guys should write books on this stuff.
-
Folks, if you've recently upgraded or renewed your annual club membership but it's still not active, please reach out to the BOD or a moderator. The PayPal system has a slight bug which it doesn't allow it to activate the account on it's own.
WATER CIRCULATION
- Thread starter RonnieB1089
- Start date
Carlo said:
I don't think so. I have to respectfully disagree.
While you do have the same bioload, you still have almost 5 times the amount of water. To maintain the same water quality you need to process more water, although you don't need to make all the equipment 5x larger. In other words, you have the same amount of waste products to get out of a much larger volume of water.
I've seen this in actual experience, when I upgraded my tank, and didn't add any new livestock. The old filtration system and skimming just couldn't keep up, no matter what I did. Yea, it sort of worked, but the water quality just wasn't the same.
You do have some interesting observations about large public aquariums. However, if you look at these extremely large systems, they tend to fish only systems and not reef systems. In those large systems there are usually no live corals, anemones, zoos, and all the live rock we tend to maintain in our reefs. There is no need to maintain the same sort of water flow.
Edward771 said:
Only by writing long opinions with the reasoning behind it can there be any real exchange of ideas and learning.
Sure, in some cases, especially with people new to the hobby, a "cookbook" answer is best. They have a very specific problem and need a fast, reasonably correct answer to prevent a disaster.
While I may not agree with Carlo on some of the fine points, I'm still interested in what he's got to say. If you have been following all the threads here, Carlo and I had some different points of view over the use of ozone.
I doubt if anyone will be writing any books soon. What we have written is only a few pages. You need to get several hundred pages together for a book!(smile)
I agree with Dave. 
Nothing wrong with a little "good" debate when there is good reasoning behind it. If nothing else, it makes you think or sometimes rethink your own setup which is never a bad thing to do. As long as it's friendly then there's no problem. No one is forcing anyone else to adopt their way of doing stuff and we all know there are many different ways to get stuff done. It's through intelligent discussions that others may learn stuff or find things they may want to explore for themselves.
Dave, I agree and disagree with you.
I do agree with you that my example won't always work. For example if the skimmer was close to it's full potential to begin with then it's not going to be able to do much more. It was a rather "simplistic" example that wouldn't hold 100% true in the real world but I used it as an example to show you don't always need a new skimmer right away or one that happens to be a multiple bigger equivalent to the water volume increase. (In the example 5 times bigger since that was the water volume increase). One thing for sure, if you have a bigger tank we all know it gets stocked sooner or later and you will probably end up needing bigger equipment unless you still have a lot of horsepower left in the old equipment.
I also agree that you do need to get the same amount of waste out of a larger volume of water. However where I differ on opinion is that the part of the water I most care about cleaning with the protein skimmer is the top layer of water where the proteins and organics build up the most. Try turning your skimmer off for a couple of hours and then look from the front of the glass up through the water. You'll see a film develop on top of the water. It's this film and the water right below it that is responsible for the majority of your nitrate build up. Granted if you run an underpowered skimmer you may have more stuff floating in the water column but as it breaks down much of it will end up on the top of the water column where the under powered skimmer can still get it removed. The remainder that is "trapped" in the water column should be able to be processed by the live rock and bacteria assuming you have the proper amount.
The 1x is probably extreme and I wouldn't recommend it as something to shoot for (I like 3x myself) but I just wanted to show/explain that by matching the sump return rate to the skimmer (what ever that happens to be) you will keep the skimmer working at 100% (or as close to 100% as it can) where if you just increase the return rate because it's a bigger tank you cause your skimmer to become less effective. The fact is that 1x COULD be the proper turn over rate for the equipment you already have, not that I would recommend buying for that rate. In the case of most tank upgrades, most people would probably have to go with a bigger skimmer or add an additional skimmer and then bump up the return rate to get back to 3x-5x (whatever that person's target happens to be).
Personally, I think we both agree on the return rate to skimmer flow rate. It's just a matter of how much of both is needed. I like 3x and you like 5x or so. I really have no problem going to 5x (as long as it's matched to the skimmer) but I myself wouldn't do it because it requires a much more expensive skimmer usually. Right now on my system I'd like to have more but what I have is still working and keeping the ORP and nitrates at a tested zero so upgrading the skimmer isn't on my purchase list yet but always in the back of my mind, especially after a few new fish are added to the system and a nitrate test is done a few days later.
Yep most of the aquariums are basically fish only. I do know the 160K gallon reef tank at Atlanta runs between 2.7x to 4x turn over as I've studied it's equipment and setup pretty intently. They have part of the equipment shared between systems so it can be "moved" to process different tanks. The setup of the reef is pretty much like our own setups just on a grand scale. If you ever plan on visiting it, try and setup an appointment to view the equipment room. The 70 skimmers they use have to be seen to be believed. They look like small farm silos. Pictures just don't do it justice.
Carlo
PS you want even or odd chapters?
Nothing wrong with a little "good" debate when there is good reasoning behind it. If nothing else, it makes you think or sometimes rethink your own setup which is never a bad thing to do. As long as it's friendly then there's no problem. No one is forcing anyone else to adopt their way of doing stuff and we all know there are many different ways to get stuff done. It's through intelligent discussions that others may learn stuff or find things they may want to explore for themselves.Dave, I agree and disagree with you.
I do agree with you that my example won't always work. For example if the skimmer was close to it's full potential to begin with then it's not going to be able to do much more. It was a rather "simplistic" example that wouldn't hold 100% true in the real world but I used it as an example to show you don't always need a new skimmer right away or one that happens to be a multiple bigger equivalent to the water volume increase. (In the example 5 times bigger since that was the water volume increase). One thing for sure, if you have a bigger tank we all know it gets stocked sooner or later and you will probably end up needing bigger equipment unless you still have a lot of horsepower left in the old equipment.
I also agree that you do need to get the same amount of waste out of a larger volume of water. However where I differ on opinion is that the part of the water I most care about cleaning with the protein skimmer is the top layer of water where the proteins and organics build up the most. Try turning your skimmer off for a couple of hours and then look from the front of the glass up through the water. You'll see a film develop on top of the water. It's this film and the water right below it that is responsible for the majority of your nitrate build up. Granted if you run an underpowered skimmer you may have more stuff floating in the water column but as it breaks down much of it will end up on the top of the water column where the under powered skimmer can still get it removed. The remainder that is "trapped" in the water column should be able to be processed by the live rock and bacteria assuming you have the proper amount.
The 1x is probably extreme and I wouldn't recommend it as something to shoot for (I like 3x myself) but I just wanted to show/explain that by matching the sump return rate to the skimmer (what ever that happens to be) you will keep the skimmer working at 100% (or as close to 100% as it can) where if you just increase the return rate because it's a bigger tank you cause your skimmer to become less effective. The fact is that 1x COULD be the proper turn over rate for the equipment you already have, not that I would recommend buying for that rate. In the case of most tank upgrades, most people would probably have to go with a bigger skimmer or add an additional skimmer and then bump up the return rate to get back to 3x-5x (whatever that person's target happens to be).
Personally, I think we both agree on the return rate to skimmer flow rate. It's just a matter of how much of both is needed. I like 3x and you like 5x or so. I really have no problem going to 5x (as long as it's matched to the skimmer) but I myself wouldn't do it because it requires a much more expensive skimmer usually.
Right now on my system I'd like to have more but what I have is still working and keeping the ORP and nitrates at a tested zero so upgrading the skimmer isn't on my purchase list yet but always in the back of my mind, especially after a few new fish are added to the system and a nitrate test is done a few days later. Yep most of the aquariums are basically fish only. I do know the 160K gallon reef tank at Atlanta runs between 2.7x to 4x turn over as I've studied it's equipment and setup pretty intently. They have part of the equipment shared between systems so it can be "moved" to process different tanks. The setup of the reef is pretty much like our own setups just on a grand scale. If you ever plan on visiting it, try and setup an appointment to view the equipment room. The 70 skimmers they use have to be seen to be believed. They look like small farm silos. Pictures just don't do it justice.
Carlo
PS you want even or odd chapters?
Carlo said:I agree with Dave.
That's an interesting point. In my own reef, I've got a couple of Tunze streams, and a closed loop, so there is a lot of water circulation that is far beyond the general circulation from the filtration system. With all that I don't think I'd get a lot of film forming, even with the filtration system shut down. (I'd need to do that since my skimmer connected to the sump.(Which reminds me that I've got to clean the skimmer this weekend)). Next time I need to do work on the sump, I'll have to take a look, and see what happens.
Try leaving the skimmer off for say 2 to 3 hours. Then after that kill your in tank circ pumps for 5 minutes to let the water settle. This won't affect the "film" at all but will make it much easier to see.
BTW, you can do this same trick another way. Just shut off all circulation including the sump return. As soon as the water settles so it's flat on top you can look up through the water. If you notice this film right away you "know" the skimmer is underpowered and not doing the job. The longer it takes to see this film develop the better and more "life/volume" you have with your current skimmer/sump return.
If you notice this film develop right away you can try adjusting the sump return rate lower to make sure the skimmer gets 100% of the water. Let it run for 6 hours or so and then do the "film test" again and note any differences. Of course if you have already adjusted the sump return to skimmer flow rates so they are in balance this won't do anything.
Carlo
BTW, you can do this same trick another way. Just shut off all circulation including the sump return. As soon as the water settles so it's flat on top you can look up through the water. If you notice this film right away you "know" the skimmer is underpowered and not doing the job. The longer it takes to see this film develop the better and more "life/volume" you have with your current skimmer/sump return.
If you notice this film develop right away you can try adjusting the sump return rate lower to make sure the skimmer gets 100% of the water. Let it run for 6 hours or so and then do the "film test" again and note any differences. Of course if you have already adjusted the sump return to skimmer flow rates so they are in balance this won't do anything.
Carlo
I have a Question for you guys. My Tank has a total water volume of 180 Gallons I have five maxi jet 900 power heads rated at 230 gph on a wave makers my skimmer pump is a Blueline 55 HD that is rated at 1100 gph and my return pump is Gen-X rated at 1190 gph. I have a brand new Blueline 30 HD which is rated at 590 gph would this be a better return pump?
Thanks for the Help!!
Daniel
Thanks for the Help!!
Daniel
Daniel said:
I would stay with what you have now as far as the filtration system goes. You have just about a 1 to 1 raito between what is going through your skimmer and what is being returned to the tank. I don't think there is any need to change the filtration system.
You might want larger pumps for the wave making part of the system, but that's more dependent upon what you are trying to keep in the main tank.
Your skimmer pump is 1100gph which would give you between 500-600 gph flow rate through the skimmer. The flow rate is usually about 50 to 60% of the pump rating if they are matched up well. So ideally you want a flow rate of 550gph to 660gph for the return pump.
Take a look at the specs on the Blueline at the head height you are running it at and also make sure you are running the same tubing or PVC sizes they use in the calculation to determine the gph.
Do the same on the Gen-X rated at 1190 gph. It very well could be you are using smaller size tubing then the manufacture quotes their specs on. This of course will reduce the flow. When all is said and done you may find the Gen-X with tubing size and head height is right in the 550-600 range which would be ideal.
Gut feeling says you are probably right where you want to be.
Carlo
Take a look at the specs on the Blueline at the head height you are running it at and also make sure you are running the same tubing or PVC sizes they use in the calculation to determine the gph.
Do the same on the Gen-X rated at 1190 gph. It very well could be you are using smaller size tubing then the manufacture quotes their specs on. This of course will reduce the flow. When all is said and done you may find the Gen-X with tubing size and head height is right in the 550-600 range which would be ideal.
Gut feeling says you are probably right where you want to be.
Carlo