External Pumps - Which would you recommend as effecient/cost effective?

[leoskee]

I had to drill my sump in order to accomodate the inline pump. This is why I mentioned a sort of closed loop feeding the skimmer.

As far as the nutrient rich water...I dont think that the dissolved organics that cling to the surface tension of the water will stay in suspension for 2-3 hours. Unless you use Maxijet as a return. With 300gph return it will more than brake the water tension and drain the proteins into the sump for my 75gl.

But for a larger tank?

I like your rendition of SPS chef.

[jaeden]

I am also in the process of setting up a 120 aga reef and had the same questions (best pump most efficient) after reading this forum and others plus countless books the pump which I think works best for me as well as price is the Eheim 1250
Quiet , effeciient doesn't add much heat to the water temp plus I am also an advocate of 3-5x water turnover via the sump rest of turnover be via closed loop or power heads .
Just an opion I'm sure others will have theirs .Good luck

[leoskee]

I think that, at a minimum, 360gph is too little for a 120. How much does your Eheim pump? How much head?

By the way, why is it called head? lol. Cause its coming from the top?

[jaeden]

Sorry , my mistake bad info ,I ment the Eheim 1260

[ChemE]

Why would 360 gph be too little for a 120? Remember all we want to do is prevent a scum of surface active proteins from building up on the water surface in the display.

[HBtank]

Good thread, thanks for the info ChemE.

Made me totally rethink what I originally thought was an efficient design.

I really need to get/make some of the maxi-streams, they seem to pave the way for an efficient design.

I might find a middle ground to start. Already ordered an ocean runner return pump... but I will go for the maxi-streams for the rest and look into going low-flow at a later date.

[tgunn]

My 2cents:
I've got a 140 with a 100 gallon sump in the basement.

My return pump is a PCX-70; it sucks 300watts and provides 1500 GPH at the head I'm dealing with. Wow, sounds nice right? But my closed loop (Sequence 1000) draws 400w and delivers 5500 GPH...

The huge sump flow through I have means I've never quite eliminated some of the microbubbles. It's also meaning I'm spending a lot of money to move water from the basement to upstairs.

I'd go with a smaller return pump and rely on closed loops or Streams / maxistreams if I were you; I've have done that if I had to do it all over again.

Tyler

[ChemE]

HBtank - Thanks for the kind words. The Maxi-Streams are simply amazing. Until you stick you hand in front of one while you watch its draw on a Kill A Watt you really can't appreciate what I mean. These things are the absolute kings of efficiency.

tgunn - So sorry to hear that you fell prey to the pervasive overkill that this hobby seems to breed. 700 watts 24/7 is 504 kWh/month which at my price is $37.8/month. Have you given any thought to switch the return pump out with something MUCH smaller and changing the 1000 out for a Sequence Reeflo Snapper? 96 watts beats the heck out of 400 and it will still deliver 2400 gph which is so much more than you need.

[gcarroll]

Originally posted by ChemE
Why would 360 gph be too little for a 120? Remember all we want to do is prevent a scum of surface active proteins from building up on the water surface in the display.

Are you under the impression that protiens are only on the surface of the water? The reason they are called disolved organics is because they are disolved within the water. The skimmer mixes air bubbles with the water to attract those dissolved organics because they tend to cling to air. If you have a recirculating skimmer, it would be more efficient to run 100% of the overflow water through it to maximize efficiency. Most of those skimmers require low flow amounts so pumping more than is recommended is doing a disservice. All I am saying is that if the skimmer can take in 1000 gph, why would you want to limit the raw incoming water to less than that? Running a 300 gph return pump on that system is like running 100 gph through a recerculating NW that recomends 300 gph.

[RGibson]

Originally posted by tgunn
My 2cents:
I've got a 140 with a 100 gallon sump in the basement.

My return pump is a PCX-70; it sucks 300watts and provides 1500 GPH at the head I'm dealing with. Wow, sounds nice right? But my closed loop (Sequence 1000) draws 400w and delivers 5500 GPH...

The huge sump flow through I have means I've never quite eliminated some of the microbubbles. It's also meaning I'm spending a lot of money to move water from the basement to upstairs.

I'd go with a smaller return pump and rely on closed loops or Streams / maxistreams if I were you; I've have done that if I had to do it all over again.

Tyler

you can take 2 small pumps and make a high head pump with less watts,how #1 pump takes in the water the output side goes into the input side of #2 pump and the output side goes in to your tank .you have now increase the head 2 times,but not the watts. I first did this 33 years ago.

[tgunn]

Originally posted by ChemE
HBtank - Thanks for the kind words. The Maxi-Streams are simply amazing. Until you stick you hand in front of one while you watch its draw on a Kill A Watt you really can't appreciate what I mean. These things are the absolute kings of efficiency.

tgunn - So sorry to hear that you fell prey to the pervasive overkill that this hobby seems to breed. 700 watts 24/7 is 504 kWh/month which at my price is $37.8/month. Have you given any thought to switch the return pump out with something MUCH smaller and changing the 1000 out for a Sequence Reeflo Snapper? 96 watts beats the heck out of 400 and it will still deliver 2400 gph which is so much more than you need.

Yeah, I went way overkill with the pumps setting up. I also have a huge beckett skimmer with a PCX-70..

My long term goals are (in the following order):
- Build some maxi-streams.
- See if I can either eliminate the closed loop pump altogether or go for a Snapper or Dart as you said... The seq 1000 delivers 5500 GPH, which is plenty of great diffuse flow as I have it set up; but I know I can do better for efficiency.
- Possibly get a couple tunzes with a controller to do side-to-side flow (I have no switching current right now)
- Build a large needlewheel skimmer and gravity feed it

I am considering a smaller return pump; that Blueline sounds tempting as a return pump.. I'll have to figure out the maxistreams first though since my setup seems to work great with the extreme flow I've got.

Tyler

[naka]

Originally posted by gcarroll
My skimmer is in sump. The pump takes only the raw water before the sump's baffles. The skimmer's output is after. The flow into the tank and the flow going into the skimmer are very close. If you have an injection style skimmer there is no advantage to reskimming the same water over and over while your tank is holding onto the nutrient rich water waiting for it to be skimmed an hour or two later when it eventually makes it's way down to the sump. Just my opinion though!

Gcarroll has a point. I think if your using injection style skimmer, you might want to increase the turnover to more than 1.5 times.

But, since I'm using a recirculating skimmer, I went w/ a small pump. Eheim 1260 for my 180, and couldn't be happier. No crazy turbulance in my sump, super quite, less electricity, and skimmer pulling out more crap than before.

Thanks,

James

[HBtank]

Originally posted by ChemE
HBtank - Thanks for the kind words. The Maxi-Streams are simply amazing. Until you stick you hand in front of one while you watch its draw on a Kill A Watt you really can't appreciate what I mean. These things are the absolute kings of efficiency.

tgunn - So sorry to hear that you fell prey to the pervasive overkill that this hobby seems to breed. 700 watts 24/7 is 504 kWh/month which at my price is $37.8/month. Have you given any thought to switch the return pump out with something MUCH smaller and changing the 1000 out for a Sequence Reeflo Snapper? 96 watts beats the heck out of 400 and it will still deliver 2400 gph which is so much more than you need.

In the span of 10 minutes you already got me totally re-thinking my design.

It just makes sense to me that low flow in a sump would be better. 2-3x an hour is fine IMO if you consider what is being accomplished there. If you are drawing in dirtier water due to low flow, you would want more contact time for the skimmer to process it anyways, they go hand in hand. Add in a refugium and the low flow is another benefit it would seem.

Living in So Cal makes this a critical isssue for me. And being able to cut the major wattage on my tank down to just the light usage and skimmer (maybe one day I'll try a DIY a CC) then I will be doing VERY well.

Not to mention it is cheaper up-front as well. VERY cheap...

Thanks.

[ChemE]

Originally posted by gcarroll
Are you under the impression that protiens are only on the surface of the water? The reason they are called disolved organics is because they are disolved within the water. The skimmer mixes air bubbles with the water to attract those dissolved organics because they tend to cling to air.

Before I answer, did you intend for this to drip with condescension?

[ChemE]

Originally posted by HBtank
In the span of 10 minutes you already got me totally re-thinking my design.

Glad to hear it. I wish I had known when I was setting up my 55 that the Rio 2100+ I was picking out was overkill. The LFS (later I found out this guy is a real idiot) actually scolded me for not buying the Rio 3100+!

[HBtank]

One question, I see a few people here against low flow, but they seem to assume skimmers are 100% efficient. We all know that is impossible, so what is the efficiency of most skimmers?

Because that definately effects the "not wanting to skim the same water twice" argument.

Just wanted to see what people knew about skimmer efficiency...

Edit: Well obviously after thinking about it, it is totally variable on the quality of skimmer... duh.

So the quality of skimmer may directly determine what flow you want in the sump... Lets say if it was 50%, than having half of your skimmers gph as your overflow GPH would be great.Personally I would be surprised if most skimmers were close to 50%. But I know nothing about the real data...

[leoskee]

Im glad I posted started this thread. Thansk ChemE. I think that we have started a new movement.

I do have to say, the skimmer that I plan on using was selected on the idea that a high return pump turn over was necessary. Now I think that it is not the case. Regardless, I still have the skimmer and will have to utilize it in some way or form.

As far as other components in the tank......I will now have to think twice about them.

WOW! This has turned into a good discussion guys.

[gcarroll]

Originally posted by ChemE
Before I answer, did you intend for this to drip with condescension?

Sorry you may have took it that way but when I write I am speaking toward the masses. I am not totally sure that everyone reading this thread may completely understand where my reasoning is coming from so here and there I may throw in reminders giving hints of where my thoughts are coming from. I agree that the surface water is the most laden with protien, but if I can process that surface water along with another 600-1000 gph, why would you limit it.

[leoskee]

Now that I look back at things, I could never understand why the owner of the LFS that I worked at sold me a wet/dry system with an Eheim that less than 300gph. I just wanted to get rid of my Whisper wet/dry ( do you guys remember them? lol) The system was set up on a 125 FOWLR tank.

Now I see how it would work. I still have the Eheim pump, 12 years later.

[ChemE]

Originally posted by leoskee
I'm glad I posted started this thread. Thanks ChemE. I think that we have started a new movement.

Actually the movement has been going on for a while. I first got turned on to this concept when I read this thread...
Why do we assume a large return pump is needed?

I have just taken it to extremes in my own reef tank and enjoy sharing with others who haven't yet made the same mistakes that I did when I was starting.

[jaeden]

Originally posted by naka
Gcarroll has a point. I think if your using injection style skimmer, you might want to increase the turnover to more than 1.5 times.

But, since I'm using a recirculating skimmer, I went w/ a small pump. Eheim 1260 for my 180, and couldn't be happier. No crazy turbulance in my sump, super quite, less electricity, and skimmer pulling out more crap than before.

Thanks,

James

I would agree with the above , hoping mine turns out as good

[leoskee]

New movement or not, I dont think that it is much discussed. Most reefers that I talk to consider a strong pump to be the sign of a good system.

When you think about skimmers and nutrients it changes the whole perspective.

[ChemE]

Originally posted by gcarroll
Sorry you may have took it that way but when I write I am speaking toward the masses. I am not totally sure that everyone reading this thread may completely understand where my reasoning is coming from so here and there I may throw in reminders giving hints of where my thoughts are coming from. I agree that the surface water is the most laden with protien, but if I can process that surface water along with another 600-1000 gph, why would you limit it.

Ok, no worries. I just wanted to make sure I responded to what you intended to say.

Just because a skimmer is rated for a flow rate of 600 gph doesn't mean that it will totally clean that flow and it probably won't even come close. This is why there isn't any harm in reducing the flow rate through the skimmer. Now in the case of downdraft skimmers which rely on high flow rates to get the air in the reaction chamber, things obviously change. But I am very skeptical that any skimmer will remove all the junk from water in one pass. If I was wrong about this point, then I would be wrong in recommending a diminished flow rate through the skimmer/sump loop.

With regard to recirculating needlewheels and CC airstone skimmers, you want the lowest flow rate possible which will keep the display surface clear. This allows for maximum dwell time within the skimmer and ensures that the water flowing into the skimmer is as dirty as possible.

In truth, there are many ways to skin a cat as evidenced by the fact that there are 10^6 of us doing things 10^6 different ways. I just seek out the method which works and uses a minimum of electricity because I enjoy the mental challenge.

[ChemE]

Originally posted by leoskee
New movement or not, I dont think that it is much discussed. Most reefers that I talk to consider a strong pump to be the sign of a good system.

When you think about skimmers and nutrients it changes the whole perspective.

I couldn't agree more. If you think about the extreme case, you have dirty water screaming through a skimmer and the air in the skimmer only has a second or two to attract the proteins. Of course we know it takes longer than this to attract many of the proteins we want to remove so we need a longer dwell time in our skimmers. Downdrafts don't exactly excel when it comes to water dwell time which is why I don't care for them. But as I've said, to each his own. This is a hobby first and foremost and we should all do what makes us happy.

[leoskee]

Im will be using a becket injected skimmer. The optimum flow rate is 1000 gph. This means using a pump that will run at 140 watts.

What do you in this case? According to the manufacturer, running the skimmer at a slower rate will reduce its effectiveness because the high flow reacting in the skimmer box is what breaks up the dissolved organics into a suspended state.