Starting Remote Deep Sand Bed, DIY in bucket

[alvin]

So it Looks like I can get Live Sand cheaper by 1 cent compared to normal aragonite sand. Would it be ok to use Live Sand for the RDSB project? I am still debating how I am going to get the water in the bucket to the top of my tank. I will probably create another thread with pictures once I start buying things. Just wondering about "Live Sand" since it's technically cheaper than regular Aragonite sand. AND because I don't have Aragonite sand in my main tank, I am hoping that having the Aragonite Sand (live or dead) in the RDSB will compensate for that, as far as nitrate control and buffering. Any more thoughts

 

[apos]

Live sand is great for your tank (though again there are lots of variations and depths and philosophies involved), but it would be pretty counterproductive and a waste of money for a RDSB. Half the point of a dark, remote SB is that it stays relatively “clean.” But live sand is already full of critters and waste and other stuff. You don’t need, or really even want, any of that in the RDSB. The sand in there is basically nothing more than a media for bacteria and the creation of low-oxygen zones that can process nitrates for you. Aragonite gives you some added buffering, but honestly, it’s not that big of a deal. If you are going to spend that money, probably better to have it in your tank where it can play other superior roles as well.

 

[alvin]

Got ya. I just figured that since they have a sale on Live Sand that is cheaper by 1 cent a lb haha. Ok, so I guess I'll just get normal aragonite sand for the RDSB, and maybe purchase a bag or 2 of the live sand to add to my main tank.
My other question now is, is it possible to use my Fluval 405 as the intake into the RDSB bucket. I was thinking:
Tank --> Fluval 405 input --> Fluval output --> RDSB input --> RDSB output --> back to tank
Is that possible?
Thanks for all your replies, it has been very helpful =)

 

[apos]

Almost certainly too mch flow like that. You'd get a sandstorm. I would find a way to tap your return from the canister just enough to get 140gph or so, into the bucket, and then have the bucket drain into the drain that's going into the canister from the tank. But, unfortunately, I know very little of canister filters. Never had one, no idea what sort of pressurized system you'd be fooling with. I'm wary.

 

[apos]

Just a note on progress: the bucket is currently still in the basement, hooked up to another bucket of fresh saltwater with the powerhead in it. I've got a thermometer to bring that ice cold water up to temp, but I didn't feel like lugging the thing upstairs tonight. I'll hook it into my system tommorow.

 

[alvin]

Can't wait to see it set up on you tank.
Can any others give me some feedback of my Canister Idea. I want to nkow how I can incorporate my Fluval into the RDSB. I know water going into the RDSB would be better filtered, just curious how I can get the water up to my tank. Going to put RDSB under my tank.

 

[yannifish]

Originally Posted by Apos
http:///forum/post/2467133
Really depends on the height and distance the powerhead is going to have to move the water, but that's probably not going to do it.
A fuge is probably going to want more flow than I have here, especially because I only have like 2 inches of water to move around, whereas a fuge would have several gallons to move. You'd want to think hard about how to plumb it so that you could get the chaeto or whatever you are trying to grow moving a bit at the surface, and keep stuff from settling on the bottom (which is key to avoid having it become a nutrient sink).
What if I had the water coming in the lower side of the buket and leaving through the to? Or pluming it like yours and adding another powerhead in the bucket to curculater water?

 

[apos]

Originally Posted by yannifish
http:///forum/post/2470443
What if I had the water coming in the lower side of the buket and leaving through the to? Or pluming it like yours and adding another powerhead in the bucket to curculater water?
That could work, though you couldn't have substrate as easily, if that was what you were planning on, unless you ran the lower input up a bit in a sort of stovepipe.
I would just get a more powerful powerhead though to pump the whole thing: less heat and electricity.

 

[apos]

Hooked the bucket up.
It's a REAL pain lugging around a 90lb bucket with water splashing out the top and holes in the top!
Anyway, I managed to get it under my stand and on a piece of heavy-duty lumber so that it was high enough. It takes up a good fourth the room under my stand and most of the height (hard to get the lid on and off, unfortunately).
You can see how it's plumbed into my sump in the second shot: exhaust into the middle chamber, and the powerhead is in there. Unfortunately, and here is where more planning would have been a good idea, the powerhead just didn't fit in the sump the way I wanted: i.e. in its holder on the side. It fit, but between its output and the other side wall there wasn't enough room for the tube to go up and out of the sump without seriously bending and crimping. So the powerhead is basically just floating at an angle. Not a great thing, considering how much junk is already in there, but it works.
The interesting side effect is the output, which is unfortunately sort of bubbly (since the output is vortexing), seems to be supercharging my lousy skimmer. It's bubbling over like crazy, producing lot more of skimmate than usual. I think the output bubbles from the bucket are getting sucked into the intake of the skimmer and helping the production inside.
Anyway though.... now we wait. The bucket has to cycle, and it could be 4-6 weeks before it's reached its proper bacterial load and formed the oxygen-low realms we're aiming for. I'll start measuring my nitrates with a decently precise test next week to see if I can discern any effects....
I also, by the way, added a polyfilter pro-actively, just in case there was anything nasty in the sand that I missed.
All in all, a fun little DIY. Pretty easy plumbing, pretty cheap (though more expensive than I planned: all the little bits really add up, even if they are super cheap individually). I'll keep updating in case there are disasters or great successes.... or nothing.

 

[apos]

Been running for three days now, and there hasn't been any appreciable build up of sand in my sump, which is the one thing other than bubbles that worried me. Speaking of which, there hasn't really been any problem with the bubbles either. In the original secondary bucket that I used to test, the entire surface of the water was covered in bubbles, but in my sump, water movement is enough that they don't build up more than you see in that final pic: around the drain. And I swear some are being sucked into my skimmer and making it super-effective. I haven't bothered to check nitrates lately, since they are unlikely to be affected at this early point.

 

[snakeblitz33]

I just had a revelation! You can also do a fluidized sandbed filter like this as well!!
Just don't use as much sand, place a 90degree elbow, (or even put a bulkhead in the top) and run water through the sand! OMG! SO SIMPLE!!!!!

 

[sharkbait9]

Originally Posted by SnakeBlitz33
http:///forum/post/2473241
I just had a revelation! You can also do a fluidized sandbed filter like this as well!!
Just don't use as much sand, place a 90degree elbow, (or even put a bulkhead in the top) and run water through the sand! OMG! SO SIMPLE!!!!!
hhmmmmmmm

 

[apos]

Originally Posted by SnakeBlitz33
http:///forum/post/2473241
I just had a revelation! You can also do a fluidized sandbed filter like this as well!!
Just don't use as much sand, place a 90degree elbow, (or even put a bulkhead in the top) and run water through the sand! OMG! SO SIMPLE!!!!!
I would think that such a setup would go bad pretty fast as organics build up in the sand (from being sucked through it). You would get 0 nitrate reduction if your fluidized it as well, because the water would move through the sand too quickly, and be highly oxygenated. What would be the point? Mechanical filtration? There are way way cheaper and easier to clean types of mech filtration if so.

 

[ereefic]

Apos, I just set one up and it's been running 2 weeks. I'm using 250lbs. of silica sand from Home Depot. I've got a Mag 5 piped through 1/2" with a valve, which is about half closed, so i'm guessing 150-200gph running through it. If I open the valve anymore, the sand starts to wash away on the other side of my container (65gal. vertical stock tank filled up to about the 20gal. line). I have a prefilter sponge on the intake of the pump to try and keep crud out of the RDSB.
If you don't mind, I would like to add my results here and interested in hearing yours.
I see people are trying to 'revise' the idea of what these are and how they work, but it really can't get anymore simple. (Provided it works)

Enough flow to keep crud from settling in the RDSB.
Cover it and keep light out so algea doesn't grow in it.
Don't add algeas, rocks, etc., just sand.
Wait.

 

[sharkbait9]

Originally Posted by Apos
http:///forum/post/2473263
I would think that such a setup would go bad pretty fast as organics build up in the sand (from being sucked through it). You would get 0 nitrate reduction if your fluidized it as well, because the water would move through the sand too quickly, and be highly oxygenated. What would be the point? Mechanical filtration? There are way way cheaper and easier to clean types of mech filtration if so.
I was going on the idea of a media reactor with micro bags filled with other media.
Just have one big media chamber instead of the three i run on the one tank

 

[snakeblitz33]

I built the fluidized bed filter this evening. It works well. The idea of a fluidized bed filter is that the water will move through the sand, fluidizing it with rich oxygenated water so that beneficial aerobic bacteria can break down waste products. Bed filters are actually self cleaning, so long as the entire bed is fluidized.
there is tons more surface area in a sandbed then on a live rock.

 

[apos]

I'm still skeptical as to whether or not it would be a nutrient sink. If it's heavily fluidized, that means its oxygenated. And that means almost no nitrate reduction at all, meaning that stuff getting in there and decaying could be like bioballs times a million.

 

[sharkbait9]

Originally Posted by Apos
http:///forum/post/2475013
I'm still skeptical as to whether or not it would be a nutrient sink. If it's heavily fluidized, that means its oxygenated. And that means almost no nitrate reduction at all, meaning that stuff getting in there and decaying could be like bioballs times a million.
So what do you think about a media bucket with reef carbon, Phosban.

 

[mmm33732]

The extra production of skimmate is most likely being caused by the new addition of sand, rather then from the bubbles in the output. It will more than likely decrease back to normal levels withing a few weeks. Its just like when setting up a new system all together. Skimmers go crazy at first because of the organic matter in the new sand.

 

[apos]

I'm no expert and I've never used Phosban, but as far as I know, this sort of setup would be less than ideal. Phosban, as far as I know, works best in a pressurized forced reactor rather than an low flow, non-pressurized overflow. Lots of people build phosban reactors out of clear pvc though: it might even be a cheaper DIY to do it that way!