total system water volume?

[jhale]

I've been thinking about my next system, and what I want to achieve with it.

One of the questions I have is how much total water volume is needed to keep the tank nice and stable as far as diluting nutrients that build up.

Let's use a 180 gallon tank for the display and place a 100 gallon sump underneath it to hold the skimmer and other equipment. Let's also say the chilling and cooling of the tank would be under normal circumstances, that is the space would never get too hot or cold.

One idea I always liked was having a tank inline to make water changes super fast. So let's add a 120G tank somewhere in the system that could be drained real fast then filled with new water just as fast. Ideally I would have 2 120 tanks stacked, the top one would keep the new salt water ready and drain into the tank below when needed.

with that extra water volume comes more expense. more salt, more power needed to heat and cool the tank, more space taken up by the system, and more RO/DI water needed for top off.

I would not plan on decreasing water changes, but with more water volume how much do you think it will help in diluting the NO3 and PO4 between the changes? And just for fun lets add a large ball of cheato rolling around in that otherwise empty 120. This would not make it a fuge! just a way of further exporting nutrients.

 

[prattreef]

My head is spinning like that ball of Chaeto.

 

[gnatp2]

Dude, this sounds exactly like my IDEAL system as well (except for the main display being a lot bigger). I really like the idea of having everything plumbed together for water changes and topoff. Personally I neglect certain chores because they become so annoying to do. With a very well designed and large system, you keep things constant and do a lot better job with maintenance because is isn't so painful to do.

In my plans I was going with 2 120g tanks for water changes, but I was also starting to think about just 1 120g tank and a litremeter 3 for slow continuous water changes. The output can just go to a drain instead of the second 120g.

You've got a pretty good template for total water volume. Just copy Jason's from GA's tank!!!

Nate

 

[ming]

I think there comes a point where that extra 120 gallon water volume becomes negligible. With larger water volume, comes larger water changes to remove the same amount of NO3, PO4. Although with 120G reservoir, you can, but it seems like a lot of extra burden to have all those tanks take so much room up. Your purpose seems to be to dilute the PO4 and NO3, why not just use phosban, and run a remote DSB? If the DSB doesn't seem to be doing its job anymore in a few years, close the ball valve and change it out.

 

[jhale]

it's a system plan that can be scaled down or up as needed.

convenience is definitely part of the water change tanks.

what Jason has going for him is a basement drain that water can be pumped into.
that's hard to achieve in most set ups. maybe having a drain set up under the 2 120's would be a great idea also. you would just have to open two valves to change a decent amount of water then. but that drain could get mighty expensive if your moving into an apartment.

 

[Killerdrgn]

Hehehe i Boston one family had a farm animal water trough resevoir to increase total water volume 6ft diameter and 4 ft high. I have no clue how they kept the water heated though, didn't get a good look to see if they had a massive amount of heaters in the resevoir.

 

[jhale]

ming, yes I agree. at what point does using media to remove nutrients beat extra water volume. it's hard to say, there are so many factors involved. if space is an issue then reactors with media is the better option. I wanted to get away from using so much media all the time.

 

[jhale]

Hehehe i Boston one family had a farm animal water trough resevoir to increase total water volume 6ft diameter and 4 ft high. I have no clue how they kept the water heated though, didn't get a good look to see if they had a massive amount of heaters in the resevoir.

I've seen a few threads out there where people burry giant cisterns to increase water volume into the thousands of gallons. that's not too practical in a city. these were people that lived in the country and space was not an issue.

 

[bigbris1]

What I would do is make this great idea work for me; scrap the sump/fuge altogether, use the 100 gal tank for in-line water changes, which should accomplish more than the sump would. Plumb the skimmer as a stand alone unit (dry) with an in-line heater & viola!

I would also automate the water changes on a timed cycle with a pump on the 100g & a drain on the 180, my only chore being making sure the makeup water was premixed on time.

 

[jhale]

automating the water change sounds risky. but I guess you could place a hole in the display to drain a certain volume of water. I would not place that drain on the bottom

 

[bigbris1]

With such large volume water changes I would have the new water come in while the old is draining out. Similar to how a drain/return would work, except the drain would go to the sewer. It'd be so immaculate you could keep a manatee in there! :knockedou

 

[House of Laughter]

If one train leaves Houston traveling at 60mp and one train leave NYC traveling at 50 mph . . . . .

Jhale - in my old 180 I had water changes automated at 30g by throwing 2 ball valves. One was fed from the fuge pump to a drain into the slop sink in the basement that was plumbed behind wall and the other was fed directly to the frag tank drain that drained into the sump filter socks before it was circulated to the display. Need planning help - lmk, I'll hook you up with a diagram.

House

 

[House of Laughter]

this will somewhat negate the water change effectiveness of taking out NO3, Po4 etc.

See the calculator on RC of effects of water change on nutrients (think it was RC)

House

With such large volume water changes I would have the new water come in while the old is draining out. Similar to how a drain/return would work, except the drain would go to the sewer. It'd be so immaculate you could keep a manatee in there! :knockedou

 

[bigbris1]

It's settled then...I'll do it! I'll rob the Quickie Mart...

 

[ShaunW]

I believe that you limit PO4 and Nitrate by husbandry techniques. The increased volume with dilute out these molecules initally, but you will still accumulate them over time in the rock (PO4) regardless of water volume.

Limiting PO4 from the onset is the goal, by not overstocking with fish, using GFO, skimming well, feeding mimimally, and regular water changes. Not allowing it to accumulate from leaching out of debris and sink to the sandbed and rock.

I like fast large water changes. In my 120g system, I have about 80g of actual water volume. Monthly I remove 50g and replace it, all within 5-10 minutes.

 

[jhale]

I think it should still be staggered, to make the most of the water change. otherwise the new and old water would overlap a bit. going to a sewer line you could use a pump to drain the 120, and then let gravity feed the new water. the whole thing would take minutes to complete.

just to go back to the diluting question, with an average bio load would the extra water be insurance towards keeping the tanks NO3 at or bellow 5ppm between water changes.

edit: thanks Shaun

 

[jhale]

Shaun I agree on limiting the PO4 in the first place.
But as it accumulates through feeding and waste would not the increased water volume help dilute the levels? instead of going from say .02 to .06 (or more) between water changes would the extra water lessen the jump in PO4?

 

[ShaunW]

just to go back to the diluting question, with an average bio load would the extra water be insurance towards keeping the tanks NO3 at or bellow 5ppm between water changes.

Nitrate is effectively removed via bacterial denitrification. That is accomplished via a sandbed. Other methods are cultivating macroalgae and having a mature tank such that corals undergo assimulatory denitrification.

 

[jhale]

Need planning help - lmk, I'll hook you up with a diagram.

House

jim thanks, it will be a while, I'll just have you come plumb it might be out of state though rangehat

 

[ShaunW]

Shaun I agree on limiting the PO4 in the first place.
But as it accumulates through feeding and waste would not the increased water volume help dilute the levels? instead of going from say .02 to .06 (or more) between water changes would the extra water lessen the jump in PO4?

You will more effectively prevent the waste from becoming PO4 by removing it before it degrades. Filter sock, skimmers, and high flow. It is for this reason that my system is BB.

The added water will help initially, but in reality you still have an enclosed system.