friendlyburger Posted September 18, 2009 Share Posted September 18, 2009 Earlier this year I put a baffle (chamber) into my sump to add some matrix as I was stocking my tank up and wanted to add some extra filtration to the existing bio-balls. By putting this chamber in it reduced the amount of water that the pump section of the sump could hold by more than half. My problem is that I need to top up the water about every 3 to 4 days as the pump starts to suck air (which I know is not really a major problem but just doesn't go inline with my maintance schedule). I had a thought tonite when doing a water change but I'm not sure if it will be effective. Let me know your thoughts! My though: Take the baffle system out which will increase the amount of water holding in the pump area back to what it uses to be. Make a slow flowing canister out of the original container the matrix came in (eg I have a spare 300 lph water pump pushing water into the bottom of the container full of matrix, water slowly rises up thru the matrix and over flows out of the top back into the sump. My question is about the effectiveness of this. At present all the water that enters the sump goes thru a chamber full of matrix each cycle. If I change it to the canister sytle thing only the water that the low volume pump picks up goes thru the matrix which is only half the tanks volume per hour. Is it a situation of what misses the matrix this time will go thru the next time, or the time after that, etc and still be effective at it's job as the water needs to move thru the matrix slowly anyway? It is 2 lts of matrix that I have on a 6x2x2 which has a 3500lph pump. Thanks in advance for your thoughts/advice Jake P.s I know the obvious thing is to buy a bigger sump but I don't want to fork out $$$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosco Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 One obvious question is what size is the sump? My 6x2x2 has a 100x45x50 sump and I never have a problem. Do you have lids on it? Can you put a picture up? cheers rosco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
friendlyburger Posted September 20, 2009 Author Share Posted September 20, 2009 rosco The sump is a bit smaller than yours. 700(l) x 400(w) x 300(h). The section that the bioballs are in (above water line) means that the water level height is restricted to max 160mm throught the baffle system. I realise that at bigger sump would be better but don't want to spend the $$$. This one was oringinally set for bioballs only and I used it that way for years with no trouble but I decide to add matrix as I stocked up the tank to higher levels. The sump holds enough water if power goes out. My worrys were about flow rate thru the matrix. If I made the changes as in earlier post only 300 lph of water (1/2 tank volume)would pass thru the matrix as apposed to the current turn over of close to 6 times tank volume p/h. Would the flow of water thru the matrix be enough or should I just leave it as is and top it up as needed. As stated in previous post its not a major issue as I just have a bottle water waiting to top up tank as needed, it was just a thought. Jake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noddy65 Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Its a good question... To my mind a slower water flow rate through increased surface area (more media) is more beneficial than increased water flow rate through a smaller surface area of media (reduced volume of media). If this is wroing Id love to hear the science behind it? Rgeards Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
friendlyburger Posted September 21, 2009 Author Share Posted September 21, 2009 Mike My thoughts are with you with the flow rate thing. I'm not actually reducing the media volume just put the water thru it slower, therefore is the slower flow rate allowing more time for the media to work better then than water flowing thru more often but faster???????? Jake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CThompson Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 I personally have no great issue with a slower or faster flow rate in relation to the biomedia/bacteria - provided the tank is clean. Faster flow will encourage more crud to be filtered, but this faster flow won't really affect the denitrification rate as even at slower rates it won't be a "one pass through biomedia = zero ammonia/nitrite” situation. One advantage to a slower flow is that there will be more chance that the internal Matrix structures/areas are free of O2. No oxygen = nitrate removal. Bearing in mind that nitrate is the least toxic of the three, and it exported with water changes anyway, and if you do not have high nitrate readings anyway, this possible benefit is much of a muchness. In regards to you evaporation rates, Rosco asked whether you had lids on the sump but I didn't see an answer. The simple and effective solution to this issue, if no lids are used is to put lids on. If lids are already in use, it could be a critical "pinch point" in your system should you evaporate past the pumps intake. As you know, if water level drops to the point that the pump runs dry, the pump will burn out = cost to replace/no circulation = dead fish and or bacteria. Not knowing your sump, if you already have lids I'd have more water even if that means replacing bioballs with Matrix. Hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod54 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Bioball v flocked media This is an interesting "scientific" research Most interesting is the graph on page 5 This shows a much greater conversion rate of Ammonia at slower water speeds(regardless of media) if you look at the Blue line....Ammonia is converted 10 times faster at .5gpm than at 6gpm Slow is better...that is why air driven sponge filters do such a Good job a biological filtration I wonder how much biological filtration is done in filters and How much is done by bacteria in substrate and hard surfaces in the tank??? I've seen a lot of healthy fish in Asia.....no filtration just aeration??? Has anyone tried putting a light over their sump and adding duckweed to remove nitrate.....Good food for mbuna!!! I'd love to see a comparison between a sump and a canister with regard to particle removal and biological filtration......sumps rely on gravity to push water through media where as a canister being a closed system sucks the water through(greater pressure!) I'm talking about proper scientific test not personal opinions....anyone seen a comparison??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CThompson Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Bioball v flocked media This is an interesting "scientific" research Most interesting is the graph on page 5 This shows a much greater conversion rate of Ammonia at slower water speeds(regardless of media) if you look at the Blue line....Ammonia is converted 10 times faster at .5gpm than at 6gpm Slow is better...that is why air driven sponge filters do such a Good job a biological filtration I wonder how much biological filtration is done in filters and How much is done by bacteria in substrate and hard surfaces in the tank??? I've seen a lot of healthy fish in Asia.....no filtration just aeration??? Has anyone tried putting a light over their sump and adding duckweed to remove nitrate.....Good food for mbuna!!! I'd love to see a comparison between a sump and a canister with regard to particle removal and biological filtration......sumps rely on gravity to push water through media where as a canister being a closed system sucks the water through(greater pressure!) I'm talking about proper scientific test not personal opinions....anyone seen a comparison??? G'day Rod Excuse me as I haven't the time to read the whole link. I feel I have seen it before, have you posted it in the past? The difference I feel will be that with this experiment, the ammonia is added in one hit; another portion of ammonia (as NH4OH) is added so that the reservoir tank ammonia concentration is again at the 9 to 10 ppm level Where the bacteria have a sudden increase of food to deal with, and it is measured and graphed as it tapers off. In our tanks, for the most part, the ammonia produced is at steady regular amounts. At least, it is not poured in via a beaker . This will have a HUGE impact on weighing up the differences of flow rates with an established tank. To me, that will mean the difference in conversation rates from a faster or slower flow will be negligible to the tank itself. That is, in a fully cycled tank there will be zero ammonia and nitrite readings whenever it is taken, regardless as to whether the water is flowing faster or slower (provided both are adequate). If there are ammonia and/or nitrite readings, we all will recognise this as a cycling issue, and a tank in crisis. Which I doubt will be solved by decreasing the flow rate. If it were able to fixed up with this method, your tank is living on the edge and other remedies need to be sort and enacted. That is why I think the flow rate issue verses conversion time is a moot point. I think the more important factor to consider is flow rate verses suspended matter. That is, a faster flow will create more potential that the suspended matter will stay suspended and may pass a filter inlet during its travels. Which leads me to; I'd love to see a comparison between a sump and a canister with regard to particle removal and biological filtration......sumps rely on gravity to push water through media where as a canister being a closed system sucks the water through(greater pressure!) Can't give you scientific tests, and I understand you are not after personal opinion... but I would say from my understanding that the difference between a sump and canister filtration is not to do with how the water passes through (via gravity or pump fed) but how the water is moved/is moving in the tank itself. Regardless of how the water flows through a filter, the crud has to be moving to be accessable to the filter inlet. There are other differences between the two, such as filtration area to how long between cleans. But in regards to effectiveness - the water has to get to a filter inlet for it to filter. Duckweed I believe is recognised and used as a nutrient scavengers, so I'm sure it will remove nitrate, and given enough surface area to cover, could be quite effective. I understand and remember you use this stuff for this reason and you will know it a "turf scrubber", usually written as "algae turf scrubber". For me the problem in most tanks, least certainly for me, is containing the damned stuff. I'll stick with nitrate removall with oxygen devoid environments - less to clean up What does the duckweed keep your nitrate levels at and how big is the bioload? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.