Yet another sump design

[robn]

Any problems with this design, improvements that could be made? The only thing I don't like about it is not being able to control the amount of flow into the fuge, but the current should go on the upper part and leave the middle/bottom OK.

 

[tony detroit]

If you don't plan on running a filterpad on the water on its way down to the fuge, you may want to think about it. Otherwise you'll get a lot of waste buildup in there. Have you thought about running it all through the skimmer side, then through the plants, then to the pump? I think that would be more efficient.

 

[robn]

Yeah, my original sketch was like that, but I've read where it is more efficient to run "raw" water into the fuge rather than skimmed....of course, most of the water rushes past the skimmer anyway so it may be irrelevant.
Thanks for the opinion....I'll give that one some thought.

 

[robn]

Something like this then?

 

[tony detroit]

Yup. I like the water to hit the skimmer first. That way, whatever can get removed is removed. Then the plants can feed off the leftovers. Remember plants have the ability to go sexual and release the things they have absorbed, so regular cropping is recommended. Plus with the skimmer once its out, its out for good.

 

[msd2]

yeah but the issue is that its too high of flow for the fuge. Dont forget your skimmer is probably getting 500gph, that has to run through the fuge too before its gettin pumped back up to the tank. I like, and use your first design. Works very well. Only major difference between my setup and yours is my pump sits on the bottom of the center chamber and instead of that first baffle the pipe is lager so hte flow is slower and released directly into the fuge. BTW if you use cheato instead of calp. it doesnt go sexual
here is a pic of my sump when it was new

 

[robn]

Thanks for the replies....still debating but leaving toward design #1.....they both would work I guess....just trying to do the optimal one.

 

[tony detroit]

I have a hard time believing that there is a optimal flow rate for macroalgae. Also I have never seen any published views on this. Not saying there isn't, just saying I haven't seen it. Dwell time/contact time is effective in various applications like UV for instance, but with macros, I see them growing off whatever is in contact with them, I don't see them feeding like a filter feeder would, more less absorbing what is in the water.....JMO, I'm a flow-aholic. I don't think it would make that much difference slowing the water down.
If you're doing it to lower nutrients, then the 4'' of sand in there is going to work against it anyhow. It will just accumulate waste over time. I wouldn't run the sand, but then again I hate DSB's.

 

[squidd]

Actually, I've written quite a bit about it...
As far as being "published" they tell me I use too many "quotation" marks...
I have run a number of different fuge "sizes" and "flow rates" and compared them to the same fuge and "different flow rates" and the same flow in different "sizes" and flow "patterns"...
Along with flow through vs. split flow and differing lighting wattages, spectrums and photoperiods...
Most of which are layed out in my "Squidd System" for sump/fuge building threads...
I can guarentee that if you follow the "Squidd System" of flow rates, direction, fuge sizing and lighting you will have "measurable" results...(IE: non-measuable levels in tank) compared to fast flow, flow through, or undersized fuges...
(Algal Scrubbers, actually)
Will the "Squidd System" totally cleanse an "Over Fed, Over Stocked, Under-maintained" tank...
NO...
But I can guarentee Much better (measurable) results compared to "Slapping a 10 on your tank, running 600 gph through it, and calling it "Good"...

 

[tony detroit]

Squidd, do you think you could add that info to the guidebook on algal scrubbers?