how many times a hour should the water go through the sump?

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by Bloodasp

believe what you want until a thorough study comes out about it. The skimmer isn't the only equipment in your sump .

I just lost all my typing so I will try get it down again

there was a study, that showed that the best turnover was between 5 to 10% with almost as good in the 3-5% range and the 10-15% range.

now this is hard to quantify and a useless study because it is only aplicable to a system with the same size sump, display tank, skimmer and even simular tank stocking as if you change any one of thoes aspects you alter the outcome. so unless we at least know sump size/shape, display tank volume, and the skimmer he is using no one can even pretend to say what sump flow rate would be good.

now as for Mr OM's 100%vs10% thing, pure bunk.. first all no one does constant weekly 100% water changes so it is a fary tale.. Second no skimmer has a 100% efficency so it aint going to happen, your skimmer probably skimms at a 5 to 15% efficiency at best.

but it was a entertaining thread.. made me chuckel a few times.

Steve

[mr.wilson]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

no skimmer has a 100% efficency so it aint going to happen, your skimmer probably skimms at a 5 to 15% efficiency at best.

Steve

Actually protein skimmers have an efficacy rate of 80% for removing proteins and 20% for removing TOC (total organic carbon - DOC & POC).

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/1/aafeature

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by mr.wilson

Actually protein skimmers have an efficacy rate of 80% for removing proteins and 20% for removing TOC (total organic carbon - DOC & POC).

http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2010/1/aafeature

Ok, if you read that it is not an efficiency, it is how much it will remove in 24 hours.. an eficiency would be how much it would remove in one volume change of the skimmer, which is what this discussion is about having a flow rate matched to your skimmer. so if my skimmer had a flow rate of 600gph, I would call the efficiency the amount of crap removed from 10gal of water in 1 min, a power efficiency would be how much is removed compared to the power input.

so ya the 80 and 20%s have nothing to do with what we are talking about really.

Steve

[mr.wilson]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

Ok, if you read that it is not an efficiency, it is how much it will remove in 24 hours.. an eficiency would be how much it would remove in one volume change of the skimmer, which is what this discussion is about having a flow rate matched to your skimmer. so if my skimmer had a flow rate of 600gph, I would call the efficiency the amount of crap removed from 10gal of water in 1 min, a power efficiency would be how much is removed compared to the power input.

so ya the 80 and 20%s have nothing to do with what we are talking about really.

Steve

So how would you rate the efficiency of the following example...

You have a protein skimmer that requires a 600 GPH feed. You feed said skimmer 600 gallons of display tank water every hour with no bypass in the sump and without allowing the skimmer to process water twice before it is returned to the display tank.

No one in this thread claimed that is 100% efficacy, but since you are broaching the subject, how efficient do you consider that configuration to be?

The thread isn't about protein skimmer limitations. It's about making the operation of the equipment you have run efficiently.

[golf nut]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

now as for Mr OM's 100%vs10% thing, pure bunk.. first all no one does constant weekly 100% water changes so it is a fary tale.. Second no skimmer has a 100% efficency so it aint going to happen, your skimmer probably skimms at a 5 to 15% efficiency at best.

but it was a entertaining thread.. made me chuckel a few times.

Steve

Just so it is on record could you point me to where I said that.

[mr.wilson]

The question on the table isn't the limitations of protein skimmers, it's simply how much water do we need to feed them. I really don't see how anyone can argue that their protein skimmer that processes 500 GPH needs 1000 GPH fed to it. After you move beyond that no brainer you figure out a way of making sure that all of the water you run through the sump goes through the protein skimmer and does so only once. That's maximum efficiency.

[banditpowdercoat]

Originally Posted by mr.wilson

The question on the table isn't the limitations of protein skimmers, it's simply how much water do we need to feed them. I really don't see how anyone can argue that their protein skimmer that processes 500 GPH needs 1000 GPH fed to it. After you move beyond that no brainer you figure out a way of making sure that all of the water you run through the sump goes through the protein skimmer and does so only once. That's maximum efficiency.

Exactly. But, one does have to consider tank flow if it's enough to maintian detritus in suspension so the low sump flow can take it. Most have that taken care of no problem. Some, however use sump flow as a contributor to overal tank turnover. If you don't get the crud from the tank to the sump, it doesnt matter what flow the sump/skimmer has.

[Zoaelite]

Mr. Wilson,
First of all thank you for that properly constructed post if every single person on this forum was like you I don't think I would ever stop reading . I will break my "No more posting" post as there are finally some factual intelligent comments on here.

The only one major difference between what you have described and what takes places in the average reefer's sump is that almost in all cases the skimmer is never fed by the return. In the future I might design my sump like this as its an interesting concept and I'm sure it would save energy/ increase efficiency. Just out of curiosity do you have any photos of your sump as I would love to take a look?

Now that being said, as most sumps are not like this and include a sump volume with multiple apparatus drawing water out of that volume (and not being plumbed in line). We can determine that some of this water is leaked and gets pumped back into the main tank has to be dirty (as there is no way you could 100% clean this before it makes its way back).

So if dirty water is being plumbed into the tank anyways why not increase the flow so there is constantly a new supply of DOC and surfactants for the skimmer to skim off? Also with the advent of Biopellet reactors, Zeovit and other nitrate/ite/NH3 sinks would it not be more beneficial to have a higher turn over to supply fresh dissolved (As compared to surface) organics to these reactors?

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by Mr OM

Just so it is on record could you point me to where I said that.

ok, not exactly but implied now that I read it again. by sayign skimm it 100% while you are talkign about the lower flow you are saying that the skimmer is 100% or close to it efficient.

Originally Posted by Mr OM

If you skim it 100% then what you return to the tank is clean, if you skim 10% of it then 90% of what you return is dirty or unskimmed, why would you do that when it costs more money in hydro and pumps to do worse?

Steve

[mr.wilson]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

ok, not exactly but implied now that I read it again. by sayign skimm it 100% while you are talkign about the lower flow you are saying that the skimmer is 100% or close to it efficient.

Steve

MrOm's comment makes perfect sense to me and I can't see how he infers anything about the efficiency of the actual protein skimming device.

I don't know why you keep trying to change the focus of the thread, which is throughput for a sump.

If you stop at a gas station and fill your tank to the top with 50 litres of gas, then proceed to overflow another 950 litres of gas (20 x the amount needed) on the ground, where does that rate on the efficiency meter? Would you do this if you read it in a book? Would you reconsider the practice if someone offered you irrefutable proof that it isn't necessary?