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

[mr.wilson]

Originally Posted by 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?

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. The protein skimmer is not fed by the sump return pump directly. The water first passes through the display tank for an unknown amount of time. The water eventually overflows into the overflow box where it is then available to the skimmer. I wish there was a FIFO (first in first out) system that would assure display tank water is processed at maximum efficiency. For our purposes, we will call the display tank water "dirty" and the sump water "clean".

If you install a single glass partition wall to segregate your protein skimmer in a an area we will call the "skimmer zone", and you plumb the protein skimmer effluent so it puts the "clean" water into the second zone, then you will process 100% of the water entering the sump, providing your sump return pump is matched to the output of your skimmer pump.

Let's look at an example. If you have a tank between 75-300 gallons you will likely be using a modified laguna Max-Flo 1500 pump that produces 800-1000 LPH air, and 450-500 GPH of water throughput. This is the pump you will find on Royal Exclusive Bubbleking and ATB models. Protein skimmers using Sicce PSK-2500 pumps have approximately 660 GPH output, but that is dialed back as more air is introduced.

Now that we know 500 GPH is the maximum amount of water we can treat, we match our sump return pump accordingly. Simply go to a handy head loss calculator and punch in your head distance, pipe size, and plumbing parts. http://www.reefcentral.com/index.php...oss-calculator I picked Poseidon/Velocity PS2 for cost effectiveness, low heat transfer, external pump, and absolutely dead quiet operating sound. My calculation came up with 592 GPH, and 664 GPH with the PS3. The price and power consumption is the same for both models so I would go with the larger PS3 and run a bypass of 150 GPH through a UV sterilizer. If you are an energy miser go with an external powerhead of some sort. You should be able to move that much water using half as much electricity. Personally I feel it's cheaper to pay for the extra electricity with the comfort of knowing your PS2 or 3 will run for many years without service. Or take that $5.00 energy savings per month and keep it in a jar. You will be able to buy a new powerhead in three years when that one dies. They will be running on solar or wind by then anyway

There is no reason why media reactors or bags of media in a dam & weir can't be fed strictly "dirty" water. The water exits the skimmer and flows over the media bag once as it travels through the sump, or your media reactor effluent is directed to the third zone so it is only treated once.

[banditpowdercoat]

One way you get close to a FIFO style sump is with a recirc style skimmer. If the drain of the tank is fed Directly into skimmer, then the skimmer will skim 100% of the sump flow.(to the skimmers efficiency's of course) The Sump return pump would then only need to be sized for the skimmers need. But, it seem's most skimmers now are being made single pass.

[mr.wilson]

Originally Posted by zoaElite

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?

I didn't address this point in my last post. Overflow boxes of any design skim only the thin crust of hydrophobic surfactants off of the surface. The brunt of the water is not from the surface and will contain all kinds of wonderful "dirt" for the various gizmos and gadgets.

[banditpowdercoat]

Originally Posted by mr.wilson

I didn't address this point in my last post. Overflow boxes of any design skim only the thin crust of hydrophobic surfactants off of the surface. The brunt of the water is not from the surface and will contain all kinds of wonderful "dirt" for the various gizmos and gadgets.

I was allways told that it is only the very thin layer of the surface we want? The solid particulate waste acctually gets absorbed/eaten by corals, inverts etc.

[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?