I know.........another sump question

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
MyFishEatYourFish;2740095; said:
i good thing to be with the first ball valve would be to route it back to the media portion of your sumps to filter again
thanks..........good idea.
 
MyFishEatYourFish;2740095; said:
i good thing to be with the first ball valve would be to route it back to the media portion of your sumps to filter again

Good idea for mechanical filtration but not as good for biological as it reduces the nutrients going thru the bio-media at a given time.

Dr Joe

.
 
Dr Joe;2741290; said:
Good idea for mechanical filtration but not as good for biological as it reduces the nutrients going thru the bio-media at a given time.

Dr Joe

.
HHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.:confused:
 
Dr Joe;2742116; said:
:D

:ROFL::ROFL:

(it's never simple!).

Dr Joe

.
This is true, but you guys have made it easier. Thanks.
 
like weenee858 said if you want really clean water run it back through a sock filter this will polish the water and not have to go back through the biomedia. can't hurt having cleaner water right
 
true, it would dilute the incoming tank water to a lower nutrient content. but when water passes through biomedia it isn't nearly 100% efficient. think about it, if it was, in less than 30 minutes the whole tank would be nutrient free, the bio would die and then you would have nutrient problems for ten minutes. i know it can't reseed in ten minutes, its just for the point.
lets try the math, lets say the water gets pumped over the media 50 times a day, which is an underestimate. so say it takes a whole day to denutrify a tank, then the bio-efficiency if you will, is only 2%. but we all know that if that happened our bio would die the next day and or we would have huge swings in nutrient concentrations in our tank from it dying and coming back. would everyone agree bacteria also takes more than two days to come back? therefore bio-efficiency can't be over 1% or you would have seriuos problems, and so would your fish.
so yes, it would dilute it, but lets get an average. 3 parts incoming at 100% plus one part at 99%+, 399%/4= 99.75%+ average nutrient content relative to th max nutrient content in your system.
looking at it from water quality point of view i think it would be more beneficial to route it back to the bio assuming it wouldn't be overdosing your media, becuase if theres too much water flowing over it then there's less contact time with the media, which is partially overruled by the increased turnover rate, but still there has to be a happy medium found. so i think that if youre not flooding media, route it back to the bio.
a filter sock is a really good idea though. you could get like a 10 micron sock and really polish the crap out of it. just when you are going to bump the sump at all take off the sock, cause it would clog quick!
 
Here is my 55gal sump built for my yet to be set up 180gal tank.
Looks good! Question, why have the pump side so large? My point being, you could have gone with a 30 gallon for a 180 gallon.

So far the only thing I think I would had done differently would be to have made the media area larger. Oh well, live and learn.
I try to enforce this when people are in the desige stage of their sump be the truth here is that your bio capacity in your sump will handle over a 400 gallon tank. Looks like 24Lx12Wx13H? = 61 liters of potential bio capacity. 20-30 liters would have been more than enough. I say that just as a FYI for future reference.

weene858 said:
but as far as trying to biologically filter it again, no point.
Ditto. Especially with such a huge bio capacity.
 
MonsterFishKeepers.com