What isthe Best sump system for a 29g tank?

[cgill311]

Frewl;31576 wrote: You might want to keep it on the low end so you have more contact time with your skimmer. What is the flow rating of the skimmer?

The skimmer has it's own pump, so you can run the skimmer and sump completely independent of each other.

 

[stroid]

oh i understand what your asking now it has a Rio 600 but I was considering putting a MJ1200 on it not sure yet.

 

[stroid]

I measured the tank stand it is 10 1/2" on the inside 2 feet tall and 30" wide. It is 42" from top of the tank to the bottom of the stand. So what can I fit in there? What kind of pump would be needed to push water up that high?

 

[mufret]

In my experience, I've had much better luck with a slower flow through the sump on smaller setups. The benefits are increased contact time with your skimmer (if it's located in the sump, of course), easier management of an integrated refugium (the greater the flow, the more elaborate the fuge setup needs to be - to keep the macro algae in the fuge and not clogging your return pump intake), more time in the fuge, less noise, more efficent and usually smaller return pump required (real estate is, after all, at a premium) which also has the added benefit of putting less heat into the system. The con to this setup is that it will require the use of powerheads or a closed loop to get the flow required in the display. There are however some great energy efficient options available these days.

 

[stroid]

mufret;31715 wrote: In my experience, I've had much better luck with a slower flow through the sump on smaller setups. The benefits are increased contact time with your skimmer (if it's located in the sump, of course), easier management of an integrated refugium (the greater the flow, the more elaborate the fuge setup needs to be - to keep the macro algae in the fuge and not clogging your return pump intake), more time in the fuge, less noise, more efficent and usually smaller return pump required (real estate is, after all, at a premium) which also has the added benefit of putting less heat into the system. The con to this setup is that it will require the use of powerheads or a closed loop to get the flow required in the display. There are however some great energy efficient options available these days.

Thanks for the suggestions Mike I am still exploring all options but it does seem that powerheads will have to be used no matter what but thats alright i can deal with that. Also it seems that I will be running the skimmer as a HOB not in sump to save space.

 

[reeferdawg]

I'm very shaky on what "closed loop system" means on this board. Can someone briefly explain how this works with regards to a sump, or point me in the direction of some info? Thanks!

 

[cgill311]

mufret;31715 wrote: In my experience, I've had much better luck with a slower flow through the sump on smaller setups. The benefits are increased contact time with your skimmer (if it's located in the sump, of course)....

Mike, you definitely have more experience than I do, but I have to disagree with some of the thinking here. As long as the skimmer has it's own pump (different from the return pump to the tank), the contact time in the skimmer is going to be solely dependant on the flow rate of the skimmer pump.

mufret;31715 wrote: easier management of an integrated refugium (the greater the flow, the more elaborate the fuge setup needs to be - to keep the macro algae in the fuge and not clogging your return pump intake)...

This is true. However, I would argue that with well designed, notched baffles will keep chaeto in the correct chamber and out of your return pump intake even with higher flowrates through the sump. Maybe some of the difference in our arguements comes from our ideas of "higher" and "lower", which is always subjective.

mufret;31715 wrote: ...more time in the fuge...

Yes, at lower flowrates, there would be a longer contact time in the fuge on a per pass</em> basis. However, regardless of what size return pump you use, the water will spend an equal amount of time per day</em> in the fuge. And since the this is a continuous process and not a single pass process (the macroalgae can't consume the nitrates in a single pass), I don't agree that a slower flowrate will result in higher nitrate consumption by the macroalgae over the course of a day versus a higher flowrate.

mufret;31715 wrote: ...less noise, more efficent and usually smaller return pump required (real estate is, after all, at a premium) which also has the added benefit of putting less heat into the system. The con to this setup is that it will require the use of powerheads or a closed loop to get the flow required in the display. There are however some great energy efficient options available these days.

I agree totally here, but I would still argue that well designed baffles, an ATO that keep water levels in the sump constant (to prevent large water level changes between chambers in the sump, thus creating noise), and fine tuning your overflow to prevent gurgling will also help to keep the noise to a minimum.

In my short experience, with higher flowrates through the sump, additional powerheads or closed loops are unnecessary. I can get all the flow I need, while keeping water chemistry in check (with a skimmer, fuge, kalk addition via ATO), with a Mag 9.5 on a 30 gallon tank. Adding a SWCD and Hydor rotating output also help with creating erratic flow patterns in the tank. My SPS, LPS, and softies are all growing well and seem to be happy with the current setup.

It just goes to show that there's no one way to keep a reef tank. Different things work for different people. Also, what type of corals you want to keep should factor in to your decision. SPS will require higher light with greater water movement. LPS and softies are less demanding in their needs and will generally thrive in lesser light intensity and water movement.

 

[mufret]

CGill311;31724 wrote: It just goes to show that there's no one way to keep a reef tank. Different things work for different people. Also, what type of corals you want to keep should factor in to your decision.

This is really the underlying fact that needs to be highlighted! There are many "correct" ways to do many of the things we do in this hobby. There is rarely only one right way of doing things!

I based my observations strictly on my own experiences and from experimenting with different setups on my systems. I've consistently found that my in sump skimmers seem to skim more effectively in lower flow situations. I have no idea why this happens but on more than one occassion, I've gotten more and better skimmate out of the same skimmer when I slowed the flow through the sump. Could this be the result of the same principle we see at work with recirculating skimmers where a turnover rate of 1 to 1.5 times of your water volume per hour is recommended?

 

[frewl]

With the dimensions that you posted about the stand you should be able to fit a 20 high under there. the 15 and the 20H has the same footprint <span style="font-family: Arial;">24 1/4" x 12 1/2". the 15 is </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">12 3/4" tall and the 20H is </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">16 3/4" tall. You will need to cut a piece of plywood or some other material to support the bottom. That will add 1/2-3/4 inches. Just something to help you decide. You might even still be able to hang the skimmer off the sump. but then you might have been talking about the 15H which is </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">20 1/4" x 10 1/2" x 18 3/4" you might still have to cut some wood to support the bottom. But then Aquabuys has the 25 for sale and its dimensions are </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">24 1/4" x 12 1/2" x 20 3/4" Not much room to get in overhead but then once you put in some light for the cheato and maybe even run tube to pour in the top off you should be fine.
</span>

 

[reeferdawg]

ReeferDawg;31721 wrote: I'm very shaky on what "closed loop system" means on this board. Can someone briefly explain how this works with regards to a sump, or point me in the direction of some info? Thanks!

I'm going to quote this to ask it again. Can someone please at least take two minutes to point me in the right direction to finding an answer? Please.

 

[frewl]

http://www.melevsreef.com/closedloop.html">http://www.melevsreef.com/closedloop.html</a>

This is an example of one. Basically the pump pulls from the display and pumps back into the display. Head loss mainly occurs due to pipe fittings. I believe the "closed" part is due to the fact that it intakes and returns to the same body of water. You are pushing water through the tubes. Unlike from a sump which pushes up against the water that is in the return line.

 

[reeferdawg]

Frewl;31777 wrote: http://www.melevsreef.com/closedloop.html">http://www.melevsreef.com/closedloop.html</a>[/QUOTE]

Wow, that really opens up some new possibilities! I always forget about MelevsReef. Thanks!

:cheers:

EDIT: Yeah, you'll likely lose around one velocity head per elbow. The friction loss shouldn't be that bad, though. It's probably why he moved up to the mag 7 pump. Thanks again!

 

[frewl]

No problem. Since you don't have to pump up against the water you can have a smaller pump to run a closed loop. When you are calculating the head pressure on a closed loop you can disregard(for the most part) the position of the pump under the surface of the water. The fittings(elbows, couplers, Y's, SCWD) in calculating the head pressure. And pipes those add some head pressure too.

This is my understanding if I am wrong please help me.

There is a head loss calculator on Reef Central

If you want to see a great chart on head loss there is one in <u>The Reef Aquarium Vol. 3</u> Great book almost everything you want to know about equipment.

 

[stroid]

Frewl thanks alot for your help you definitly deserve the rep points and a beer at the next meeting!

 

[reeferdawg]

Frewl;31781 wrote: No problem. Since you don't have to pump up against the water you can have a smaller pump to run a closed loop. When you are calculating the head pressure on a closed loop you can disregard(for the most part) the position of the pump under the surface of the water. The fittings(elbows, couplers, Y's, SCWD) in calculating the head pressure. And pipes those add some head pressure too.

This is my understanding if I am wrong please help me.

There is a head loss calculator on Reef Central

If you want to see a great chart on head loss there is one in <u>The Reef Aquarium Vol. 3</u> Great book almost everything you want to know about equipment.

Wow, I wish I had known about the head loss calculator last night! I got my old undergrad fluids book out and relearned how to calculate head loss and size a pump and did most of that stuff by hand. It isn't too difficult, but it definitely wasn't fresh in my mind.

Thanks for the help!

 

[frewl]

And another plus of a closed loop is that the pump isn't submerged so there is less heat transfer to the tank vs. powerheads.

 

[frewl]

Man I think the ARC is trying to turn me into an alcoholic I've been offered beers here and then. I feel like a blonde at a bar on ladies night.

Stroid you still looking to do that sump this weekend?

 

[stroid]

probably gonna try to plan it out with reeferdawg this weekend and start collecting parts then do it next weekend.

 

[frewl]

I'm thinking that the pump that I Pm'ed you about should be enough. I know both side of the argument have merit. I really would suggest that you use a slower pump because of less heat generated and like the MelevsReef's closed loop you can jack up the flow that way. and you don't have that extra heat in your tank. How is the flow in your tank as we speak? I think I said it before the actual opening of the stand in the back is more important then the actual floorspace in the stand itself. I'm not trying to discourage you just making sure you get the right tank for your space.

Just remember the Carpenter's rule. "Measure twice, cut once"