Feedback on FW Refugium / WD Sump combo design

[badreverend]

I love your idea, and I do have a couple of comments/suggestions, a few people have already mentioned your pump return wall, I agree- something needs to be done, maybe a taller wall? With your drip plate, something to consider is either sloping it down, or graduating holes to be larger as you get away from the falls, or both , to keep the drip more even and spread. Also, what lights are you planning, due to your size restraints you might consider a shallower tank just to fit the lights under there, let alone the heat build up in the sump and also the heat that is radiating upwards into the show tank itself, the heat exchange would be far greater if it wasn't jammed tight in there , maybe consider a fan. Good luck

 

[SoCalDiscus]

what are these for?

These 2 baffles are to reduce turbulence and control the flow of the water. The first one on the left where the sock is contains the turbulence that occurs when the water first enters the sump, and directs it uniformly into the plant chamber. The second baffle, to the right of the plants, forces the flow over and past the plants. This way the water has to flow back down past the plants and will have a greater chance to settle before going to the drip plate. I think both baffles could technically be left out, but that could make it pretty chaotic in the plant chamber. Especially if the first baffle is removed. If I ever wanted to use Miracle Mud instead of pea sized gravel as Dr. Joe suggests, then keeping the second baffle in will help to direct more water past the mud.

The tradeoff of using the first baffle is that particulate may settle before it reaches the plant chamber. This could be solved by eliminating the first baffle and having the plant chamber extend all the way to the left below the input. The only downside that I can see to this would be that it could be tough on some of the smaller plants if it is like a hurricane in there.

So, my thoughts were to keep both baffles, but allow the shrimp to get into the first chamber and keep it clean.

What are your thoughts?

Also, your water level in your bio media bay will be as high as this partition, so in order for your water level to be shown at its drawn height, this partition will need to be taller.

I should have been a little more careful in drawing the water level in the biomedia chamber and pump chamber. They will be the same height in both unless the water level in the return chamber gets really low. The water level in the bio media bay will never be lower than the partition. It provides a lower bound for the water level in that chamber. However, if I build everything correctly, the return pumps will be the bottleneck of the system. This means that the total amount of water within the system will determine the height of the water in the return pump chamber because it is backing up waiting to be pumped. If the water level is higher than the partition to the return chamber, then the water level will be higher in the bio media bay as well. So, it is possible for the water level to be higher than the partition.

Is my logic correct here?

a 55 is going to be very snug, especially when its filter maintence time, with only 2 inches above the sump. I would go for a 40 breeder, same base but shorter.

I agree it is going to be VERY snug. It would be a lot easier to use a shorter tank. I may even have trouble getting a light in there for the plants. I guess it comes down to how much of a stack of vertical bio media I need to have. The reason I was going for such a tight fit was to maximize the amount of bioballs or scrubbies I could fit taking into account the drip plate and filter floss above it.

If I use a 40G with a 48" x 14" footprint then the height would be around 13.75".
40G * 231 Cubic Inches per Gallon = 9240
9240/(14"*48") = 13.75"

Would this height give me enough bio filtration being that the bio media would be definitely less tall than this? I would guess that I would have no more than 8 or 9 inches of bio material height. It could be even less... If I try to keep the 1/3 under water, then the water level would be very low for the return pumps and would likely need some sort of top-off system. (I guess that wouldn't be completely out of the realm of possibilities, but I would rather not if I don't have to)

This is all about trade-offs. I hate to talk in terms of minimums, but what is the minimum height of bio material I need? This will help to determine the height of tank I need.

If it's not easy to access it's not going to get done! This is a Murphy's sidebar law.

I fully agree with you. As I mentioned above, I need help on balancing the trade offs between access/ease of use and filtration efficiency.

Dr. Joe, using the multiquote tool I lost a few of the quotes I was going to respond to from your posts, so I will just get to those in an additional post rather than potentially messing this one up.

Nice diagram. Well done on that.

Thanks, I actually used MS excel and set the cell dimensions to make squares. Then used each cell to represent 1/4 inch. It made doing measurements really easy, and just like drawing on graph paper. Then I copied it to photoshop for the text and arrows.

----------
To everyone, thanks for all your time spent reading, thinking, asking questions, and making suggestions. I really appreciate it!

-Eric

 

[SoCalDiscus]

Continued response to Dr. Joe:

A) The space is for fine detritus buildup over a long period of time. 1/2" of clear space is fine.

Ok, that's what I had figured, but you know the whole story about assuming. Funny aside, as an economist... that's all that we do.

Keep it in this thread so the original pix are with it and people don't get confused.

Will do.

"So, no one else has any comments on this?
This is MFK for heavens sake, I at least expected a "that is a dumb idea" or a "been there done that... that's old news" out of someone. Or at least a "That's not big enought!" I'm feeling kind of lonely here.
For now I will interpret the lack of a response as indicating that those who looked found it generally uninteresting, and that means I should be on the right track, or didn't totally !@#$#% it up yet."

Or you could take into consideration the post had only been up for a day .

Pace yourself, some of us are slow readers

Yes, my apologies. I was just trying to make it a funny bump.

You do need to revise the baffle heights to get the water levels right as the overflows will only flow what the pump returns.

I'm not sure which baffles you are referring to? If you let me know where you see the problem, I can make a more directed response rather than discussing all of them. As I created the diagram, I thought I had taken that into consideration, other than the water level in the return chamber. That was a last minute rushed edit.

Suggestion... use pea sized gravel for the plants as you want then to use the nutrients from the water (not artificial nutrients from the mud (which would have to be replenished and would enter the water column)).

Great idea. As I posted above in response to salsa, the first baffle may block nutrients from reaching the gravel area. Do you think it is worth modifying or removing the first baffle and extending the gravel area to the left in order to catch more nutrients? My concern is that 1K+ gph coming in straight above the plants and gravel would just keep stirring things up all the time and it would be a mess. I guess the shrimp could eat any particulate that falls in chamber 1, and leave their waste in the plant chamber. (wishful thinking)

Oh, and answer salsa's question.

I have answered these in my previous post. Hopefully they are clear.

Keep up the good work and have patience with us slower folk.

Hahaha, thanks, will do! And thank you for your time and effort!

-Eric

 

[SoCalDiscus]

Hi badreverend,

Thanks for your feedback.

a few people have already mentioned your pump return wall, I agree- something needs to be done, maybe a taller wall?

I think I have already addressed this in a previous post. In a nutshell, the pump should be the bottleneck of the system. Otherwise there will be a flood. With this as the case, the water level in the 2 right hand side chambers could be above the wall/partition. This would be determined by the total amount of water in the system. The wall provides a lower bound for the water level in the media chamber. Its only use would be to guarantee that some of the media is always submerged even if the total amount of water in the system drops due to evaporation etc.

With your drip plate, something to consider is either sloping it down, or graduating holes to be larger as you get away from the falls, or both , to keep the drip more even and spread.

I think that's a great idea. I haven't made one of these before. I figured if I made the holes such a size that I can keep about 1/4 to 1/2 inch of water in the tray, it should drip evenly. This may be easier said than done, so I'm glad to see some alternative ideas.

Also, what lights are you planning, due to your size restraints you might consider a shallower tank just to fit the lights under there, let alone the heat build up in the sump and also the heat that is radiating upwards into the show tank itself, the heat exchange would be far greater if it wasn't jammed tight in there , maybe consider a fan.

Yeah, hot lights directly under the display tank might not be a good idea. I have mentioned the idea of the tradeoff between vertical height of biofiltration media versus access to the tank, and now also fitting the lights under there as well. I am kind of waiting to see what others think regarding how much height I need for the bio filtration. I would prefer easier access, but I also want to make sure I have adequate filtration.

Good luck

Thanks, I'll keep updating.

-Eric

 

[Kogo]

I don't understand why you would want to have a wet dry in addition to your refugium. The two will be compete for the same nutrients.

I think you would be better off with just the refugium as the plants would remove nutrient as ammonia and convert it directly to new growth which can be trimmed and thrown away.

Wet-Dry filters will break down ammonia to nitrite then to nitrate.
While the plants can take up nitrate, it would be much simpler to just let them take up the ammonia without competing with bio balls.

as long as you keep fast growing plants and trim them regularly to encourage new growth your water should be pristine.

I would suggest hornwart or hygrophilia as a nutrient loving fast growing plant. hornwart has no roots and can grow as a floating plant, removing the need for substrate. hygro is cooler looking and more desirable as trimmings, but would need substrate.

HTH

 

[salsa]

here is a simpler design. sorry about quality, i just drew it quickly.

 

[alcohologist]

that looks good, salsa.
what i was wondering, socal discus, is why you chose to have your fuge before your wet/dry?
speaking as one of the "reef people", haha. my sump is simple - skimmer and rock in the first compartment, rock in second compartment, refugium in third, chemicals in fourth, return in fifth. you dont want too many nutrients to get into your fuge - theyre more useful for nitrate-nitrogen gas.

 

[terd ferguson]

I've been following this thread with great interest. You've got a good basic design down. For plants, consider mangroves. They are working for me very well.

To kogo, don't think of the wet/dry and fuge as in competition with each other but rather in harmony. Much like nature. Hakunamatata, circle of life, etc.

 

[Kogo]

bio balls and plants are not in harmony. one removes nutrient by creating several stages of byproduct and the other removes nutrient as a whole product. when the bacteria consumes ammonia, it produces nitrite. another bacteria consumes nitrite and produces nitrate. then you need the plants to remove the nitrate. Why not just have the plants consume the ammonia in the first place... much simpler and efficient.

 

[SoCalDiscus]

bio balls and plants are not in harmony. one removes nutrient by creating several stages of byproduct and the other removes nutrient as a whole product. when the bacteria consumes ammonia, it produces nitrite. another bacteria consumes nitrite and produces nitrate. then you need the plants to remove the nitrate. Why not just have the plants consume the ammonia in the first place... much simpler and efficient.

I will post some more in the morning... but my first thoughts are just how much ammonia can plants absorb? How much plants would I need? I think this is where the wet/dry comes into play. The wet dry can convert ammonia into nitrite, and then to nitrate, which is a macro nutrient for plants and not as harmful to fish. I'll do some more reading on plant uptake, but I think I like the idea of a wet/dry as additional capacity if nothing else.

My primary motivation for doing a refugium is to remove nitrates from the water which can not be done with a traditional wet/dry. So, if the wet/dry gets me to the nitrate stage, then the plants can use it... and if they clean up some ammonia and nitrite along the way, great!

Basically, I don't see any harm in having both, and the production cost for doing both is minimal. Continuing maintenence is where there could be some more work, but at this point i'm not sure how.

-Eric