Replacing Sump with Hiatt System

wrenix1001 · 09/22/2009, 02:07 PM

Hello,

I am looking to get rid of my sump to make my system a completly closed loop system.

I am considering using the Hiatt TBPC Carbon filter along with a very large skimmer, live rock and maybe fluidized bed filter.
Has anyone heard how well the Hiatt system works (other then from people trying to sell the TBPC carbon)?

My tank is 410 gallons and will house mostly fish and maybe some mushrooms.

I am just tired of the noise and flooding associated with sumps.
so, if anyone has any ideas on how else I can get rid of my sump, please let me know.

Thanks,
Wrenix1001

agsansoo · 09/22/2009, 02:29 PM

I've seen Hiatt systems, I was not impressed. For 400+ gallons you would need lots of carbon. Not to mention that huge cylinder/tank that houses the TBPC (eye sore).

IMO sump are great for hiding all your equipment. Also stay away from a fluidized bed filter, they produce large amounts of nitrates.

pmrossetti · 09/22/2009, 04:31 PM

Anytime you take water out of the tank to under the tank or next to the tank there's a chance of leaks.

The only leak proof approach is sumpless and plumbingless. If plumbed with safety in mind sumps can minimize leak possibilities.

Or for practically leak proof tank use hang on equipment or buy a Clear for Life Uniquarium.

pmrossetti · 09/22/2009, 04:33 PM

What caused the floods you spoke of?

sjm817 · 09/22/2009, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wrenix1001

I am just tired of the noise and flooding associated with sumps.
so, if anyone has any ideas on how else I can get rid of my sump, please let me know.

A sump doesn't mean you have flood problems. If you do, something isn't set up properly. The sump should never cause a flood. Noise is a tougher issue. Sumps can be quiet, but it takes a bit more planning and careful equipment selection.

luther1200 · 09/22/2009, 04:58 PM

That system you speak of has just as good a chance at leaking, if not more. And the way you have to have the return is very noisy.

You would be better off with a RDSB.

wrenix1001 · 09/23/2009, 05:55 AM

Thanks for all the replies.
I still want to eliminate the sump.
What do you folks think of running a 410 gl, fish only tank with just live rock and a huge skimmer? Without the Hiatt system.
Could it handle th bio load?

bstreep · 09/23/2009, 08:54 AM

Just to jump in on the Hiatt part of this discussion...

The Hiatt systems DOES work. For FO and softies, you will be fine. I ran Hiatt for about 6 months a couple of years ago, and stony corals just wouldn't grow, so I removed them.

Last Xmas I tore down my SPS tank, due to bryopsis:

I'd done everything under the planet to rid my tank of bryopsis, and I threw in the towel. When I tore everything out of the tank, including the sand, but not the fish. It started crashing. So I hooked up one Hiatt torpedo. Within about 4 hours, the tank was clear. I left it up and running until about 10 days ago.

Even with a 215, I still had a single Hiatt torpedo running. My nitrates were under 5 - and the tank has a large fish bioload. What won't grow:

SPS
Most LPS
Algae

What does grow:
Anemones
Mushrooms
Palys
Frogspawn/torch/hammer

The Hiatt leaves the tank looking sterile. I have to wipe the glass maybe every 2 weeks, and that's just soft growth. Oh, and my bryopsis did NOT return - and I know I didn't get ALL of it.

The Hiatt system ISN'T for everyone. I took mine off because I want to see if what LPS I still have left will recover. I no longer have any SPS. But, for a FOWLR plus some softies, I'd definately consider it. Feel free to PM me with any other questions.

And, yes, with a Hiatt system, you WILL reduce the number of leaks/overflows, etc. you have. BUT, you do need to consider that they need to be backflushed every month or so...

RegalAngel · 09/23/2009, 09:59 AM

If you go with Hiatt then you can trash the skimmer as it is unnecessary with the RightNow! bacteria. They will take care of any organics. Need lots of flow however, but the amount of carbon is open to ?

http://saltaquarium.about.com/od/nit...reeduction.htm

wrenix1001 · 09/23/2009, 12:54 PM

Again thanks for the helpful info.
Does anyone have an idea of how much carbon I would need for a 410 gl tank?
I know that the manufaturer recommends .1667 lbs / gallon, which equals 68 lbs for my tank.
I have read of people using A LOT less then that. I would like to use the least amount feasable.
Thanks.

luther1200 · 09/23/2009, 03:04 PM

They recommend 1/3 of that for a reef tank. What kind of tank are you planning?

I have seen the videos of they guy explaining it and he makes no sense at all. He claims that the bacteria will use the carbon like vodka. Which is total B.S. GAC is inorgaic carbon and not the same as dosing vodka. So the whole principal behind the system is flawed, and makes no biological sense. All it is, is a giant GAC reactor. Which a giant skimmer will be far easier to maintane and work better in the long run. Who would want to backflush a giant reactor monthly and then change out about 40 or so pounds of media? Not only that where do you get the water to backflush, is it tap water? And where does all the water go? So you would have to be near or have a large drain plumbed in somehow. I have backflushed a pool filter many times and its a PITA.

pmrossetti · 09/23/2009, 04:18 PM

I think it would handle the load. Are you talking HOB skimmer or one under tank? If I was doing HOB I'd use 2 real good ones and 2 or Aqua Clear power filters with different medias in each one. You could also place chaeto behind your rocks in DT for nitrate reduction.

wrenix1001 · 09/24/2009, 05:38 AM

My tank will house mostly aggressive fish (Triggers, Angels, Lionfish, etc.) and maybe some mushrooms, so the bioload will be pretty heavy.
As far as skimmers go, I have a couple of decent ones but I was thinking of building one 6"dia by 48" tall one.

wrenix1001 · 09/24/2009, 08:02 AM

bstreep,
How much of the TBPC carbon did you use on your 215 gl? If I go by the manufacturer I need 64 lbs. of the carbon. I have heard of people having good results with far less carbon.
Also, did you keep your skimmer going as well?
Thanks,
Wrenix1001

09/22/2009, 02:07 PM	#1
wrenix1001 Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 15	Replacing Sump with Hiatt System Hello, I am looking to get rid of my sump to make my system a completly closed loop system. I am considering using the Hiatt TBPC Carbon filter along with a very large skimmer, live rock and maybe fluidized bed filter. Has anyone heard how well the Hiatt system works (other then from people trying to sell the TBPC carbon)? My tank is 410 gallons and will house mostly fish and maybe some mushrooms. I am just tired of the noise and flooding associated with sumps. so, if anyone has any ideas on how else I can get rid of my sump, please let me know. Thanks, Wrenix1001

09/22/2009, 02:29 PM	#2
agsansoo Premium Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Downey,CA Posts: 1,782	I've seen Hiatt systems, I was not impressed. For 400+ gallons you would need lots of carbon. Not to mention that huge cylinder/tank that houses the TBPC (eye sore). IMO sump are great for hiding all your equipment. Also stay away from a fluidized bed filter, they produce large amounts of nitrates. __________________ Andy SCRK Member Current Tank Info: Barebottom, 65 Bow-Front, 20 gal sump/fuge, octo extreme 160, (2) Lumen Max3 250W w/ XM 20k's, 2 VHO Actinic and (1) VorTech MP40w & (1) VorTech MP10

09/22/2009, 04:58 PM	#6
luther1200 Premium Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: NJ, shore Posts: 4,376	That system you speak of has just as good a chance at leaking, if not more. And the way you have to have the return is very noisy. You would be better off with a RDSB. __________________ Matt, 65G reef tank Current Tank Info: 65g reef, mix of sps, lps, few softies. Hoping to upgrade within the year.

09/23/2009, 08:54 AM	#8
bstreep Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 115	Just to jump in on the Hiatt part of this discussion... The Hiatt systems DOES work. For FO and softies, you will be fine. I ran Hiatt for about 6 months a couple of years ago, and stony corals just wouldn't grow, so I removed them. Last Xmas I tore down my SPS tank, due to bryopsis: I'd done everything under the planet to rid my tank of bryopsis, and I threw in the towel. When I tore everything out of the tank, including the sand, but not the fish. It started crashing. So I hooked up one Hiatt torpedo. Within about 4 hours, the tank was clear. I left it up and running until about 10 days ago. Even with a 215, I still had a single Hiatt torpedo running. My nitrates were under 5 - and the tank has a large fish bioload. What won't grow: SPS Most LPS Algae What does grow: Anemones Mushrooms Palys Frogspawn/torch/hammer The Hiatt leaves the tank looking sterile. I have to wipe the glass maybe every 2 weeks, and that's just soft growth. Oh, and my bryopsis did NOT return - and I know I didn't get ALL of it. The Hiatt system ISN'T for everyone. I took mine off because I want to see if what LPS I still have left will recover. I no longer have any SPS. But, for a FOWLR plus some softies, I'd definately consider it. Feel free to PM me with any other questions. And, yes, with a Hiatt system, you WILL reduce the number of leaks/overflows, etc. you have. BUT, you do need to consider that they need to be backflushed every month or so... __________________ Bill Current Tank Info: 215g Brick Reef, 55g Seahorse, 12nano

09/23/2009, 03:04 PM	#11
luther1200 Premium Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: NJ, shore Posts: 4,376	They recommend 1/3 of that for a reef tank. What kind of tank are you planning? I have seen the videos of they guy explaining it and he makes no sense at all. He claims that the bacteria will use the carbon like vodka. Which is total B.S. GAC is inorgaic carbon and not the same as dosing vodka. So the whole principal behind the system is flawed, and makes no biological sense. All it is, is a giant GAC reactor. Which a giant skimmer will be far easier to maintane and work better in the long run. Who would want to backflush a giant reactor monthly and then change out about 40 or so pounds of media? Not only that where do you get the water to backflush, is it tap water? And where does all the water go? So you would have to be near or have a large drain plumbed in somehow. I have backflushed a pool filter many times and its a PITA. __________________ Matt, 65G reef tank Current Tank Info: 65g reef, mix of sps, lps, few softies. Hoping to upgrade within the year.

09/22/2009, 04:31 PM	#3
pmrossetti Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Cali. Posts: 3,199	Anytime you take water out of the tank to under the tank or next to the tank there's a chance of leaks. The only leak proof approach is sumpless and plumbingless. If plumbed with safety in mind sumps can minimize leak possibilities. Or for practically leak proof tank use hang on equipment or buy a Clear for Life Uniquarium.

09/22/2009, 04:33 PM	#4
pmrossetti Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Cali. Posts: 3,199	What caused the floods you spoke of?

09/23/2009, 05:55 AM	#7
wrenix1001 Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 15	Thanks for all the replies. I still want to eliminate the sump. What do you folks think of running a 410 gl, fish only tank with just live rock and a huge skimmer? Without the Hiatt system. Could it handle th bio load?

09/23/2009, 09:59 AM	#9
RegalAngel Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The Redwood Reef Posts: 908	If you go with Hiatt then you can trash the skimmer as it is unnecessary with the RightNow! bacteria. They will take care of any organics. Need lots of flow however, but the amount of carbon is open to ? http://saltaquarium.about.com/od/nit...reeduction.htm

09/23/2009, 12:54 PM	#10
wrenix1001 Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 15	Again thanks for the helpful info. Does anyone have an idea of how much carbon I would need for a 410 gl tank? I know that the manufaturer recommends .1667 lbs / gallon, which equals 68 lbs for my tank. I have read of people using A LOT less then that. I would like to use the least amount feasable. Thanks.

09/23/2009, 04:18 PM	#12
pmrossetti Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Cali. Posts: 3,199	I think it would handle the load. Are you talking HOB skimmer or one under tank? If I was doing HOB I'd use 2 real good ones and 2 or Aqua Clear power filters with different medias in each one. You could also place chaeto behind your rocks in DT for nitrate reduction.

09/24/2009, 05:38 AM	#13
wrenix1001 Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 15	My tank will house mostly aggressive fish (Triggers, Angels, Lionfish, etc.) and maybe some mushrooms, so the bioload will be pretty heavy. As far as skimmers go, I have a couple of decent ones but I was thinking of building one 6"dia by 48" tall one.

09/24/2009, 08:02 AM	#14
wrenix1001 Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 15	bstreep, How much of the TBPC carbon did you use on your 215 gl? If I go by the manufacturer I need 64 lbs. of the carbon. I have heard of people having good results with far less carbon. Also, did you keep your skimmer going as well? Thanks, Wrenix1001