Jump to content
Coral Vue Hydros

2 questions about W/C with a sump.


camry90

Recommended Posts

1) when you do a W/C. do you HAVE TO syphon from the display or just remove from the sump(if you have one)

 

2)my sump will be located next to a floor drain. can i put a bulkhead close to the top of my sump and have then pour new SW on the opposite end of the sump to let the old SW to overflow into the drain?

 

sorry i don't have my sump ready yet so i can't show you a picture of what i'm trying to ask.

 

:P

Link to comment
1) when you do a W/C. do you HAVE TO syphon from the display or just remove from the sump(if you have one)

 

2)my sump will be located next to a floor drain. can i put a bulkhead close to the top of my sump and have then pour new SW on the opposite end of the sump to let the old SW to overflow into the drain?

 

sorry i don't have my sump ready yet so i can't show you a picture of what i'm trying to ask.

 

:P

 

I definitely siphon my DT periodically, but i just pump outta the sump most the time. I dont like the idea of idea #2 though. I would pump out to the floor drain and then refill afterwards with SW if it were me.

Link to comment

If you do any research on mixing, or took calculus you'll know that by having a steady rate in and out you'll export less nutrients than if you do fixed amounts in and out all at once. This is because as you continue to add more water, and more continuously drains, then the water draining increases in percentage of new water.

Link to comment
1) when you do a W/C. do you HAVE TO syphon from the display or just remove from the sump(if you have one)

 

2)my sump will be located next to a floor drain. can i put a bulkhead close to the top of my sump and have then pour new SW on the opposite end of the sump to let the old SW to overflow into the drain?

 

sorry i don't have my sump ready yet so i can't show you a picture of what i'm trying to ask.

 

:P

 

I always remove the water from my sump, never from the display. It's one of the advantages of having a sump, imo.

 

Do a google for continuous water change and I think you may find some information that will help you with your second question.

Link to comment
That'll do it.

 

I remove from both my display and sump. Usually half of my WC from display and half from the sump.

 

With an continuous water change system You'll need to make sure you have a few more fail safes or it could be dangerous with a sw tank.

Link to comment

I siphon right from the display.Then I pump my new water in the sump.If I had a floor drain next to the sump I would have a bulkhead coming out of the sump to a gate valve with a hose.Turn the valve on and drain the sump.I think this is what you are asking.I like the idea you have.

Link to comment
If you do any research on mixing, or took calculus you'll know that by having a steady rate in and out you'll export less nutrients than if you do fixed amounts in and out all at once. This is because as you continue to add more water, and more continuously drains, then the water draining increases in percentage of new water.

I'm going to take an issue with this. Assuming an infinite number of infinitely small water changes, with a total water volume of 30%, will be the same as a 26% one time water change. As long as the water changes are reasonably small, the difference is insignificant. The equation is I = I.o * e^(-P) btw, where I.o is initial concentration, I = final concentration, e = constant 2.718..., P is the percentage of water change.

 

I would be more concerend about the flow pattern of your return vs your overflow. Although this should be taken care of already as you want good mixing from your return anyways.

Link to comment
I siphon right from the display.Then I pump my new water in the sump.If I had a floor drain next to the sump I would have a bulkhead coming out of the sump to a gate valve with a hose.Turn the valve on and drain the sump.I think this is what you are asking.I like the idea you have.

 

 

except what drains out of my sump will be excess water from me dumping new water into the sump.

Link to comment
I'm going to take an issue with this. Assuming an infinite number of infinitely small water changes, with a total water volume of 30%, will be the same as a 26% one time water change. As long as the water changes are reasonably small, the difference is insignificant. The equation is I = I.o * e^(-P) btw, where I.o is initial concentration, I = final concentration, e = constant 2.718..., P is the percentage of water change.

 

I would be more concerend about the flow pattern of your return vs your overflow. Although this should be taken care of already as you want good mixing from your return anyways.

Take issue if you want, it's true that it's less efficient. It depends largely on how well it mixes, but your water changes are less effective, as parts of the water you are removing you just put into the tank.

Link to comment
Take issue if you want, it's true that it's less efficient. It depends largely on how well it mixes, but your water changes are less effective, as parts of the water you are removing you just put into the tank.

The issue I'm taking is that you're saying it's a big deal when it's not. A 30% water change taking out one molecule at a time will be the same as a 26% single water change. You suggested some people do the math, I suggest you go back and do the math your self, you're making a mountain out of an ant mound.

Link to comment
The issue I'm taking is that you're saying it's a big deal when it's not. A 30% water change taking out one molecule at a time will be the same as a 26% single water change. You suggested some people do the math, I suggest you go back and do the math your self, you're making a mountain out of an ant mound.

or 86% as efficient. I understand you may not care, but it is less efficient. You can't argue with that, which is what i've stated. I haven't said "IF YOU DO CONTINUOUS WATER CHANGES YOU'll DIE !!!!1111ONEONE0N3!" Perhaps you should reread my responses and try to isolate when i said it was a big deal. To me, that loss of efficiency is enough for me to do it right. Maybe you don't care.

Link to comment
or 86% as efficient. I understand you may not care, but it is less efficient. You can't argue with that, which is what i've stated. I haven't said "IF YOU DO CONTINUOUS WATER CHANGES YOU'll DIE !!!!1111ONEONE0N3!" Perhaps you should reread my responses and try to isolate when i said it was a big deal. To me, that loss of efficiency is enough for me to do it right. Maybe you don't care.

If it's not a big deal, why did you bother posting? I took issue with you saying it was less efficient without giving a reference point.

 

Furthermore, the loss of efficiency doesn't make it wrong. I would argue, it's more correct to do a continious water change for a number of reasons.

 

1) Draining 30% of the water in your is likely to expose some of your rocks, or corals to the air depending on how you've set up your tank.

2) Making water changes easier will increase the likelyhood you do them not just today, but tomorrow, and 6 months from now.

3) Efficicent in this case only means that you would waste a little water. Water is the least valuable thing in your tank, by far. In the case of a 50 gallon tank, that would be only 2 gallons on a 30%, 15 gallon water change. It's absolutely insignificant.

Link to comment
If it's not a big deal, why did you bother posting? I took issue with you saying it was less efficient without giving a reference point.

You're right, because every post you've ever made, and anyone else has ever made on a forum is a big deal. That post about my new snails, big deal. That post about your new coral, big deal. The point still stands.

Grow up.

 

Also, as far as exposure to air goes, coral can do perfectly fine with that, with some species being exposed during low tide anyway. I guess I was incorrect for assuming that

1 ) you won't be lazy. I don't really see that much of an advantage in work with continuous, but w/e.

2 ) You won't drain your water until you have new water ready. Again, this seemed like common sense to me, but apparently I'm incorrect again. Not only that, but you'd have to do that anyway with the continuous, so it seems like a non-issue.

 

 

now kids....

Because that's constructive and adds to this discussion.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recommended Discussions

×
×
  • Create New...