Stacking Media In Sump

[jjohnwm]

...Probably could get empty shot gun shells for free know loads of lads that shoot around here Devon UK...

Lol, just to clarify: I'm not talking about empty shotgun shells; wads are the component that fits inside the empty shell between the powder and the shot. They're not easily picked up after shooting as they fly out along with the shot and land on the ground many feet or yards in front of the shooter.

They're way too cheap to crawl around on your knees in the weeds picking up used ones. And even if you did, they would be dirty with powder residue, etc. and not something you'd want in your fishtank.

 

[triamond]

Do you have any pictures of this set up? I can’t recall ever seeing a filter siliconed to the glass.

A large sump makes no more noise, consumes no more electricity and certainly requires no more maintenance than a small one. Plumbing? It takes a pleasant afternoon to construct and assemble; after that, you're done and can amortize the cost (whether in dollars or personal angst) over the years or decades that the system operates.

Shorter piping → lower pressure drop → weaker pump needed → less noise and lower energy consumption.
Fewer chances of leaks.
A filter positioned at the aquarium level means no energy wasted lifting water, and no need to adjust valves to reduce noise.
Achieving the same efficiency with a traditional sump placed underneath would require 2–3 times more energy.

. The K1 was then able to show off its one actual benefit to me: it entertained my granddaughters as it jiggled.

Yeah... the view is mesmerising...

 

[jjohnwm]

View attachment 1568643View attachment 1568644View attachment 1568645


Shorter piping → lower pressure drop → weaker pump needed → less noise and lower energy consumption.

True, although I susect the increased pressure drop caused by about 3 feet more pipe is likely tiny.

Fewer chances of leaks.

Why? On the other hand, if a leak does occur (a possibility with either method), repairing it on an undertank sump would be less of a hassle than doing so on your side-mount, which would require dropping the water level in the tank below the level of the overflow.

A filter positioned at the aquarium level means no energy wasted lifting water, and no need to adjust valves to reduce noise.

Although I think that the energy difference is negligible here, I completely agree about the noise aspect. My method simply overflows water from the tank into a vertical mechanical filter beside the tank, through which it flows before entering the sump. It makes for easy access for the frequent cleaning of the first mechanical stages that I like to do, but...it can be noisy. This can't be cured with valves, either; the sound comes from the water directly gushing out of the overflow and into that top mech chamber. Being deaf as a post , I am not bothered by this.

It could be solved by simply running the overflow down directly into the undertank sump and then adding valves as you say, and I have a couple of acquaintances who do it that way. Adjusting a valve a few times to get the sound level you accept doesn't seem to be a huge task for them, and they haven't complained about it since getting it dialed in...but I don't need to bother with it, so can't say for sure.

Achieving the same efficiency with a traditional sump placed underneath would require 2–3 times more energy.

Yeah, sorry, getting the same gph flow rate by increasing pump power...just to overcome a head pressure difference of, say, 4 or 5 feet with an undertank pump versus 1 or 2 feet with the sidemount...would be nowhere even close to requiring that much more energy.

Yeah... the view is mesmerising...

It was at first; when younger, the girls spent as much time looking at the K1 as they did at the fish! But the novelty eventually wore off, and the first time they visited the fishroom and didn't run to see the filter I knew that the days of fluid media were coming to a close for me. It's primary benefit had vanished.


Your system is beautifully built, obviously works and benefits from being on display; I'm sure you enjoy seeing your handiwork doing its job. Mine is built without an eye towards aesthetics, obviously works and benefits IMHO from being out of view until I want to bend down to look at it; I enjoy not needing to see it otherwise.

Different strokes, different folks......denying that would not be rational...

 

[HUKIT]

View attachment 1568643View attachment 1568644View attachment 1568645

That is very cool! I’ve never seen anything like that before. Thank you for sharing.

 

[phreeflow]

Fire calcined clay has been shown to have similar affects on nitrates. With regards to testing, it’s being done weekly on a Lamotte spin touch not an API test or a strip.


The media is $17.99 per 250g and the catalyst is $6.99 which lasts which lasts for a year.

To be perfectly honest I don’t care what other people do or don’t. The people who frequent aquarium forums represents less than 1% of the total fish keepers in the world. I never said this the best way nor the only way. I simply shared my personal experience for those interested. It’s no different than people using pothos or FCC mentioned above to achieve the same end result, it’s just an alternative way to solve a problem. I don’t understand some of the responses to people just sharing their experiences, which is essentially the point of a public forum.

Keep talking, I’m interested. Coming from the reefing world, we messed around a lot with all sorts of things to manage water quality…nitrate being one of them.

It was fascinating to see the progress the community made tinkering with deep sand beds, sulfur denitrators, macro algae sumps, turf rollers, biopellets, vinegar, sugar, vodka, etc.

Some of the tech was overkill but things like Apex controllers were a godsend. Of course, water changes are the easiest and fastest way to get results but I’m all ears when it comes to finding other ways to accomplish things

 

[triamond]

Why, because there are new types of media that completes the nitrogen cycle which includes converting nitrates into nitrogen gas.

It’s extremely unlikely… If your fish are still alive, the water's biological oxygen demand is too low to make the water anoxic enough for denitrification to occur.
If the water smells awful like sewage and you can’t see the fish due to cloudiness (with dead fish floating on the surface), there may be a chance for denitrification to produce gaseous nitrogen.
Check the phosphates in the water – there should be plenty of them. If they’ve disappeared along with the nitrates, another process could be taking place: the buildup of bacterial biomass, which involves the binding of nitrates and phosphates.
An aquarium is carbon-limited. Adding a source of carbon (like tapioca, PCL, sugar, vodka, sawdust, glycerin, or a "magic brick" catalyst, if you prefer) can trigger the process. However, this will degrade the water quality in terms of bacterial count. It could be worse than the disease itself, since nitrates are relatively harmless to fish.

 

[triamond]

Yeah, sorry, getting the same gph flow rate by increasing pump power...just to overcome a head pressure difference of, say, 4 or 5 feet with an undertank pump versus 1 or 2 feet with the sidemount...would be nowhere even close to requiring that much more energy.

It's surprising… but assuming 60% efficiency, it’s 17.2 W to lift 1000 gph by 1 meter. Add 14.9 W for 2 m of piping and 4 sharp 90° elbows. Another 7–18 W for a check valve if used. It is 3× more than in my setup. If the aquarium is heated, it’s only a noise problem, as the wasted energy transfers into heat — but I don’t use heaters...