No love for check valves?

[Jc1119]

I find it interesting how many people object to using check valves in their plumbing setups because " they will eventually fail"

By the same logic, one could say " don't use aquarium filters because eventually they will have to be cleaned and sooner or later they will fail" or "don't buy glass tanks because sooner or later the silicone will need to be replaced or they will fail"

I've always used check valves AND siphon breaks in my setups for extra security against floods, but I find it odd that people think check valves are a set it and forget it item. Just like ball valves, gate valves and general filtration items, check valves need periodic maintenance. I mean, no one on these forums would set up a canister filter and not occasionally clean out the hoses, impeller or impeller housing would they?

I could see the argument against using them based on the perceived restriction of flow ( which in my opinion is minimal ) but to say " they will eventually fail due to algae buildup really just means the user has forgotten that they require regular maintenance like any other " tool " we use in our plumbing systems.

Other than my magnum 350 that just seems to keep working indefinitely, I've had to replace quite a few pumps and filter motors in my day. Nothing really lasts forever, but with a little tlc, check valves can last a really long time and they are a lot less expensive than any pump or filter motor I've had to replace. In theory, you could buy 4 or 5 and replace them as often as needed.

Ok. Blast away!!

 

[pjsmetana]

Most of us don't understand why we would even bother with installing a check valve. Like me... I don't have a check valve anywhere... and am not sure what I would even do with it if I had one. I'm sure some elaborate home made contraption might need one... maybe. The thought of one has never even crossed my mind when plumbing new filter ideas.

So, enlighten us oh Chieftain of the Check Valve. When to use? Why bother?

 

[Jc1119]

On the return line for a sump system. Siphon breaks work great but they can become clogged as well. I've always run a ball valve on either side of my return pump and a check on the output side as a safety precaution. In my eyes, you can never have too much insurance against backsiphoning on large systems.

You'd never really need one on a closed loop system or a canister setup, but lose power on your sump and it comes in handy to prevent any backflow. Sorry, I should have been more specific

 

[Pharaoh]

I think the real logic is why bother with something that isn't guaranteed to work when you can configure your system to work much more effectively without it. Filtration of some sort is a necessity. It is required to maintain your aquarium. Not a very good comparison as the items are separated based on need and want.

What is the point in using a check valve if you have a siphon break? It is really just redundancy within your setup. Check valves aren't needed and they add restriction to the setup.

It really boils down to a personal preference and most prefer not to use them.

 

[greenterra]

I agree. I prefer to use a filtration system that has no need for a check valve.

 

[pjsmetana]

On the return line for a sump system....

You'd never really need one on a closed loop system or a canister setup, but lose power on your sump and it comes in handy to prevent any backflow...

My sump is on top of my tank. I guess the answer is no... no love for the ball-gag, err, check valve.

 

[Jc1119]

I think the real logic is why bother with something that isn't guaranteed to work when you can configure your system to work much more effectively without it. Filtration of some sort is a necessity. It is required to maintain your aquarium. Not a very good comparison as the items are separated based on need and want.

What is the point in using a check valve if you have a siphon break? It is really just redundancy within your setup. Check valves aren't needed and they add restriction to the setup.

It really boils down to a personal preference and most prefer not to use them.

I totally understand a personal preference not to use them, but I don't understand the " because they fail logic"

I travel about 200-250 days out of the year and my wife helps me maintain my systems while I'm on the road. I suppose in my case the redundancy is more for our pom than absolute necessity. But either way, they are relatively cheap and just a little more insurance in case the wife forgets to clean out the siphon breaks while I'm gone. I agree, a system can be built without them. It's just the " because algae can build up in them and they'll fail" is the part I don't get. Personally, in my case, it doesn't make sense to not use them in setting up a large system. You can setup an overflow system without a dedicated backup drain and be perfectly fine, but the the addition of a Herbie or Bean style drain will add a lot of insurance....

 

[Bderick67]

I use them, one on each of my two return lines.

Without them I would have about 75 gallons of water backflow into my 40g sump.

 

[Pharaoh]

It's not that they will fail per say, but debris can build up in your PVC after a while. This will result in getting a bad seal. This would cause the check valve to leak. Of course, check valves aren't known for holding back a good amount of water without leaking a bit. This in not a 100% sure fire thing, but there is the chance of failure.

Then you go back to the flow restrictions that they can cause. They do in fact restrict flow as it blocks and/or can cause cavitation in the lines.

Nothing wrong with check valves I guess. But to me, there's no point in using them when I have plenty of more suitable options at my disposal.

 

[Jc1119]

I use them, one on each of my two return lines.

Me too and always have. Guess I worked in the wholesale plumbing industry too long and now it's just habit.