Efficient monster filtration Design Discussion

cvermeulen

Jack Dempsey
MFK Member
Jun 4, 2007
1,876
3
36
Los Osos, CA
We all wanna build monster tanks, some of us have, some of us are still dreaming. There's a TON of discussion on ways to build big ol' tubs with window that hold water, and there's a TON of discussion on various ways to heat and filter the thing... But one of the big problems with having a monster tank is the monster energy bills.

So

I've designed about 15 ways I could build my monster one day, but that's the easy part. I want to build it with enough forethought that it doesn't require any more energy than my current raft of tanks.

One thing I've been thinking a lot of the last few days is the problem of pumps and their energy consumption when they have to fight 5-10 feet of head. Typical vane pumps are designed to deal with quite a bit of variation in head, so that they can be used in versatile applications. This means that at any given head value, they waste a lot of energy because they haven't be specifically optimized for that head value. An example would be a Quietone 5000, that pumps 2300gph at 0 head, drawing 145 watts. Compare that to a koralia magnum 6 powerhead that's designed specifically to pump at 0 head, that pumps 2200gph and draws **10** watts. That means the koralia is 15 times more efficient (give or take) than the quiet one. Not to mention a lot quieter (go figure).

Another problem with below-tank filtration is that you basically waste all the energy of the water falling from the overflow level to the sump level. That energy turns into noise and heat in the sump, and your pump has to add energy back into the system to force the water back up to tank level. Canisters are better with this, as some of the descending water energy is used to assist the pump, so most of the pump's job is just fighting the water drag in the plumbing, and forcing the water through the media.

WTF am I going? Well, as much as it sucks to give up tank space for filtration, imagine dividing off 10% of your tank, with a generous overflow at the top, and cutouts at the bottom to closely shroud a few powerheads. You could push the water out the bottom of your filter section and as a result, more would flow in the top. You then get a high turnover filter without the massive power bills. Drop a few airstones in the bottom and you have some aeration of your media. In a power outage the BB should not die, as it's still exposed to tank ammonia, just with less circulation. Another benefit would be that you'd avoid the heat loss from the plumbing and evaporation in a wet/dry. The only real limitation I see with this design is the lack of pressure to push your dirty water through your media. This would mean you'd have to be pretty careful about how you chose your media, but it's not beyond the realm of solvable.

I'm thinking of designing this into my 1000+ build that I will get to one day, and I'm curious about what some of the other DIY gurus here think.

Also open for discussion would be good ways to insulate the water surface without inhibiting gas exchange, etc.
 

spiff

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
Dec 27, 2007
749
0
0
midwest
I would just mention then the seemingly growing-less popular UG filter. It accomplishes all of that with out compromising interior space. (presuming you're planning on using a substrate) And usually a plain 'ol bubbler does the job. But on I have never seen an UG on a monster sized tank. It would have to be rig job. Definetely a good idea though. I have always been a fan of the UG.
 

cvermeulen

Jack Dempsey
MFK Member
Jun 4, 2007
1,876
3
36
Los Osos, CA
spiff;2125203; said:
I would just mention then the seemingly growing-less popular UG filter. It accomplishes all of that with out compromising interior space. (presuming you're planning on using a substrate) And usually a plain 'ol bubbler does the job. But on I have never seen an UG on a monster sized tank. It would have to be rig job. Definetely a good idea though. I have always been a fan of the UG.
The only problem I have with an UGF on a monster tank is that it does not really concentrate the mechanical filtration into an easily cleaned area. Messy eaters means lots of debris in the substrate, and a biiiig job gravel vacuuming.

That said, it does the job, it's self contained, space efficient, and energy efficient. One could run a high volume mechanical filter in the tank, only much smaller because of the lack of bio media, plus an UGF to handle the ammonia. Good thoughts!

Something else I see is a lot of overkill on the amount of bio media used. I mean, more doesn't hurt, and when you're designing your own system more is safe, right? On my 200gal though I'm running an FX5 with one basket of crushed coral, and the stock sponges, and it keeps the parameters in check. The only thing it doesn't deal with is DOCs because I have no carbon in it, but my point is if a few liters of sponge and crushed coral can deal with the ammonia from my stock list, then maybe the tank partition for the circulating filter would not need to be very large. even a few inches off a 125 long gives you 6-7 gallons of space for filtration, which is quite a bit of bio media for even a heavily stocked 125.

Partitioning 50gallons off the back corner of a 1000 gallon tank wouldn't compromise your viewing area, or even cut into your usable space very much. Add a couple of Koralia Magnums and you have around 6X turnover rate, plenty of bio and mechanical filtration, relatively easy maintenance if you design it right.... and it uses like 20 watts, instead of 500.

Get smart with the insulation on that thing and I don't see why I couldn't light, heat and filter a 1000 gallon tank with less than I'm using to run my 200, 120, 50, and 5 gallon tanks right now. :nilly:

I wish I had the space to start building right now ;) gotta get a new job and stop renting first!
 

spiff

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
Dec 27, 2007
749
0
0
midwest
Yeah, that is a darn good idea. It just seems there must be a trade off somewhere. The only one I can think of though is the air exposure. Like my filter gets an almost 6ft drop that I utilize with two 56gal rubbermaid tubs as a gravity filter before the water lands in a 90 gal sump. All the media is Matala matting. Thats a lot of air exposure which I believe has a big affect on the bio efficiency. It just seems that a constantly submerged sump would be a little more likely to get anerobic. Probably nothing a couple extra bubblers couldn't fix though.
 

frasertheking

Fire Eel
MFK Member
Feb 17, 2007
1,142
3
68
scotland
hmm seems like a good idea just add a foot to your tank design and your set . i would liek to see a tank run on just a reverse ugf with a prefilter im sure it would be possible.
 

maseyferguson05

Candiru
MFK Member
Jan 21, 2007
279
0
46
Massachusetts
When i was going to build a simple plywood basment pond, around 8'x4'x1 1/2' i was going to section off a space in the tank no more than a foot. Cut out an overflow or use bulkheads and essentially make a W/D sump right there. The only design difference would be, using a pump instead of powerheads and having the media no submerged. Looks like we think alike ;)

The only problem i see is and the submerged media. Adding an air stone beneath it would do little to nothing. W/D filters are designed so the bacteria is exposed to air in the oxygen, not in the water. This way the bacteria won't have to compete with your fish for oxygen. Also, i see alot of sumps that just have a bunch of mechanical media mixed in water. It simply won't work. Like you said, there kinda needs to have some force behind it. Its hard to explain, but i like to think of it as the equilalent of trying to filter a pond by throwing in a polishing pad.

As for the heating, if you have a monster tank, you probably have room to insulate it also. Other than that, don't plan on keeping a tank in a cold area of the house.
 

johnptc

Feeder Fish
Apr 6, 2005
4,812
27
0
71
los angeles
www.fishtankwebcam.com
i dont believe any pump can pump 2200gph on 10 watts....maybe its me but the laws of physics say to accelerate the water even at zero head takes energy


you need alot of filtration for a 1000 with monsters.......i would think a minimum of 5000 gph.

based on my experience i would run the water to a pump through a bead filter to a bio tower and return to the tank using the water to creat currents in the tank.

better pumps eg march for higher heads or maybe sequence can be tailored to the job at hand...........you never get something ( energy wise) for free....but you do want to run as efficent as possible.


2 cents maybe 3
 

Dr Joe

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
Mar 8, 2006
10,664
9
0
71
Sixty Miles South of Tampa Florida
Thank you johnptc, :iagree:, cvermeulen is comparing apples to oranges or in this case power heads to pumps. koralia magnum 6 powerhead is for tank circulation and and may drop to nothing with restrictions (ie filtration media).

http://www.marinedepot.com/ps_ViewItem~action~view~idProduct~RB3121~idCategory~FIWPSBTO~category~Over_1000_GPH-Submersible-Water_Pumps-Saltwater_Aquarium_Supplies~vendor~.html

The "Quiet One 5000
  • Application: Wet / Dry
  • Flow Rate: 1330 gph
  • Inlet / Outlet: 1" MPT x 1" MPT
  • Dimensions: 6.25" x 4.25" x 5.25"
  • Max Head: 10.8 ft
  • Power Consumption: 110W"
This is a true pump.

*****

"Another problem with below-tank filtration is that you basically waste all the energy of the water falling from the overflow level to the sump level. That energy turns into noise and heat in the sump, and your pump has to add energy back into the system to force the water back up to tank level. Canisters are better with this, as some of the descending water energy is used to assist the pump, so most of the pump's job is just fighting the water drag in the plumbing, and forcing the water through the media."

There is a general misunderstanding of filtration here. Sumps, canisters and W/D's all perform similarly pushing or pulling water and I'm trying to figure out where the heat is generated at/from. I'm sure more would use them if they generated heat since it would save even more money.

And if we could get some clarification on how circulation occurs during a power failure. Convection flow in this small of a space would be very limited if at all.

Enlarging and placing one at each end of a 1000g tank with either better pumps or a secondary mechanical filtration systems and some intermediate circulation for the center and you could have a hit.

Keep the aeration under the bio-mass for better oxygenation. Use Lime wood air stones as they make finer bubbles.

Dr Joe

.
 

cvermeulen

Jack Dempsey
MFK Member
Jun 4, 2007
1,876
3
36
Los Osos, CA
Dr Joe;2125922; said:
Thank you johnptc, :iagree:, cvermeulen is comparing apples to oranges or in this case power heads to pumps. koralia magnum 6 powerhead is for tank circulation and and may drop to nothing with restrictions (ie filtration media).

http://www.marinedepot.com/ps_ViewItem~action~view~idProduct~RB3121~idCategory~FIWPSBTO~category~Over_1000_GPH-Submersible-Water_Pumps-Saltwater_Aquarium_Supplies~vendor~.html

The "Quiet One 5000
  • Application: Wet / Dry
  • Flow Rate: 1330 gph
  • Inlet / Outlet: 1" MPT x 1" MPT
  • Dimensions: 6.25" x 4.25" x 5.25"
  • Max Head: 10.8 ft
  • Power Consumption: 110W"
This is a true pump.
Are you really comparing apples to oranges when you take a step back and figure all you're trying to do is move water? What I was getting at is that using a "true pump" to circulate water through a zero head system wastes a lot of energy, because the motor is not running at it's optimal efficiency point. A 'true pump' like a vane pump or impeller pump also has large frictional losses because it has a large shaft and bearings and whatnot to cope with the load presented when pushing water against resistance. Anyway, my point is whether I'm comparing apples to oranges or not, I'm talking about selecting the most efficient device for the job. Circulation is what I'm trying to achieve, so a circulation powerhead I should use.

Dr Joe;2125922; said:
"Another problem with below-tank filtration is that you basically waste all the energy of the water falling from the overflow level to the sump level. That energy turns into noise and heat in the sump, and your pump has to add energy back into the system to force the water back up to tank level. Canisters are better with this, as some of the descending water energy is used to assist the pump, so most of the pump's job is just fighting the water drag in the plumbing, and forcing the water through the media."

There is a general misunderstanding of filtration here. Sumps, canisters and W/D's all perform similarly pushing or pulling water and I'm trying to figure out where the heat is generated at/from. I'm sure more would use them if they generated heat since it would save even more money.
What am I misunderstanding??

In a canister filter, the water is delivered to the sealed filter via a siphon. The water is returned to the tank via a full hose, of essentially equal length (head anyway) as the siphon hose. If you pretend there is no filter media to force the water through, and no pressure losses in the hoses for a moment, the pump has to generate zero head to return the water to the tank, because the inlet pressure at the canister due to the water column in the siphon should balance the outlet pressure of the return hose exactly. Obviously there ARE pressure losses in the hoses, and there IS pressure required to force the water through the media, but what I'm saying is that the pump only has to worry about hose losses and filter backpressure, and not the weight of the unbalanced water column on the output side.

In a wet/dry, one liter of water (1kg) falls from say 2m above the floor into the sump. The potential energy that liter has when it's in the tank is 1kg x 9.81N/kg (gravity constant) X 2m = roughly 20N*m, or 20 Joules of energy. If you're flowing 3600liters per hour, (1 liter per second, roughly 1000gph), then the water is losing roughly 20joules per second, or 20 watts in potential energy as it falls down the overflow pipe. I won't get into how entropy works, but where does that energy go, if the water is delivered at zero pressure to the sump? Heat, noise, etc. This isn't the case in a canister, because as the water flows downward, it increases in pressure. The energy goes into the returning of the water to the tank and is largely conserved.

ANYWAY, so at 2200gph we're talking 40 or so watts you give up is your overflow is 2m above the water level in the sump. Is everyone OK with that?

Dr Joe;2125922; said:
And if we could get some clarification on how circulation occurs during a power failure. Convection flow in this small of a space would be very limited if at all.
I did not mean to imply that the water would continue to circulate vigorously. what I was getting at is that your media would remain in (reduced) contact with the main body of water in the tank. If you hooked up battery powered airstones in the bottom of the filter section it would circulate your water through the filter media backwards, which would be a nice to have. Convection may be very very limited, I agree - but it's better than being in another container on the floor, no?

Dr Joe;2125922; said:
Enlarging and placing one at each end of a 1000g tank with either better pumps or a secondary mechanical filtration systems and some intermediate circulation for the center and you could have a hit.

Keep the aeration under the bio-mass for better oxygenation. Use Lime wood air stones as they make finer bubbles.

Dr Joe

.
One at each end in the back corner was sort of what I was thinking. You could even have one flow up and one flow down to create a continual soft current in the tank. 'better pumps' is a tough term to define here. I still think that a propeller based powerhead like the koralia magnum that is designed to set up large current with little to no resistance would be a better choice than a contained impeller pump designed to fight piping losses and plumbing head.
 
zoomed.com
hikariusa.com
aqaimports.com
Store