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

[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.

[banditpowdercoat]

Originally Posted by mr.wilson

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.

That scenario will be as efficient as the Skimmer manufactures designed it to be.

[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.

[golf nut]

Originally Posted by banditpowdercoat

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.

Hey Dan, every single post I have ever made regarding this has been precluded by the statement that "if the flow in the display is enough" what part do they miss.

[banditpowdercoat]

ya, I realized that after, figured I repost it though LOL.


I think this topic is like the MH/T5 debate. There is soo many possible variations and is one really better than the other? It will all depend on tank, inhabitant's other equip. etc etc.

One thing I like about this hobby is nothing is in STONE. You don't have to do it this way, or you will crash/loose everything. It's a completely custom hobby. The only thing we all have in common is we use salt water. The rest is completely up to the owner.

Fiddle with it, change things. NEVER be afraid to try something new. Even if it didn't work for so and so, doesn't mean it is wrong and wont work for you.

[mr.wilson]

Originally Posted by banditpowdercoat

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.

Absolutely. We are going under the assumption that the display tank water is moved by powerheads or a closed loop pump, as it should be for efficiency. using sump turnover ratios to increase flow in the tank makes no more sense than pumping water through your light fixture for more flow.

Some people try to do a one-pump-fits-all system, but you will find this is a false economy. save money on your return pump and use the savings to build a closed loop or add powerheads.

[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?