Bschowa's current build thread (1 Viewer)

[Bschowa]

I have the same tanks I just need close up pictures of the piping and some of the whole piping system thanks for the trouble

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Are you talking the water change station? So far all I have piped is what is pictured just the two tanks piped together and the pump. I had to replace the existing bulkheads that come with it with 1" abs bulkheads which I used a dremel to widen the hole enough for me to fit the new bulkhead in

 

[BEAV9900]

Have you found any good wire holders? mine seem to work for a month or 2 and then fall off.

 

[Bschowa]

Yea the ones from Menards work awesome, when I moved my tank down I had to try to take those off and in order to get them off it ripped off the paint lol as for how they work on my tank I'm not sure I'm still using the ones that came with my vortechs but my tanks and sump are all acrylic

 

[Bschowa]

In working with Steve Lund (coral farmer/aqualund maker) and in reading with a few others sources (Randy Holmes, TMZ, yada yada I read way too much) carbon dosing is really fundamentally about building and feeding a population of bacteria that eat 1. bio pellet stuff (sugars and such, don't make me type of the chemical equations for the different methods) and the 2. nitrate/phosphate. So ok, we feed this bacterial population which grows out of natural proportions (our tanks are way out of natural proportions anyways) due to use feeding them but where all does this bacteria live? In reality, and I'm mostly in agreement, it's everywhere in the system - rock, glass and so on not just on the bio pellets themselves. If you think about it, how could what ever is being dosed off the bio pellets really just stay withing the bio pellet reactor itself? Also, other carbon dosing methods (vinegar, vodka, Red Sea N03-PO4x product which a guy had his grad students do a a spectrometer break down of what was in it - vinegar and vodka basically) all work without a reactor, e.g. relay on the tank surface areas for.

In theory, vinegar is actually a 'better' carbon source as it has one less step to be broken down that bio pellets - it's easier for the bacteria to get their food source less chemical reactions required.

In my circumstance, in theory the reason carbon dosing might (might, I call BS on it) was I didn't have enough tank turn over to feed the display tank the bio pellet food stuffs to get the main bacterial colony going. At the time I as doing ~ 3x tank turn over and 6-10x was what Steve was recommending. I struggles with this as sooner or later it would all even out and catch up I figured, correctly or incorrectly who knows. In the end, I'm convinced there is some dependency between carbon dosing and different system setups (rock about, turn over, who knows...) where carbon dosing works for some and not others. I know some really successful folks have had great luck with them and some really successful folks who had no luck.

My tank to sump turnover currently is 3.5 times per hour. I knew this was low but with 1/2 returns and 9' of vertical piping this is what it maxed out at

the way I understood the pellets working is similar to a uv The only water that gets treated is what goes through the reactor. The bacteria lives on the bio pellets which kicks water that comes in at a higher level out at 0.

This was my reasoning for oversizing the reactors (carbon, gfo, pellets and even my skimmer is oversized) with my low flow between tank and sump I was hoping to be able to completely strip my sump of any nutrients and I was hoping that this would translate to basically doing a water change every time my sump water re-enters my tank. Then I would be able to have a high bio load in my tank and barely ever have to do water changes since my equipment is doing them for me. In my eyes this has been working for me but at this point (unless it is an Alk issue) it is working too well.

Does this ideaology make sense or am I going about this all wrong

 

[Jonty]

My sump throughput is 3x/hr any more I feel is counter productive, I like the skimmer flow to match the sump flow. My biggest problem with Biopellets was managing them so that I did not strip the tank so clean everything would bleach out. Since using the AIO product I have not had this issue as I do not think they are as effective in removing nitrates as the regular Biopellets, I also think that you need to go to AIO pellets once your tank is at low levels and they will maintain very nicely using them, starting with high nitrates and PO4 would be a tough go at it.

 

[patent]

My tank to sump turnover currently is 3.5 times per hour. I knew this was low but with 1/2 returns and 9' of vertical piping this is what it maxed out at

the way I understood the pellets working is similar to a uv The only water that gets treated is what goes through the reactor. The bacteria lives on the bio pellets which kicks water that comes in at a higher level out at 0.

Some of the bacteria live on the pellets to be sure, but if they only lived there eventually your reactor would become a large congealed bacterial mass. The nutrients have to be exported somehow. Lots of ways bacteria can be exported, but they need to leave the reactor for all of the practical ways. So as the bacteria grow and consume the nutrients, some of them wash out with the water flow where the skimmer or other organisms (some corals, for example) can consume them.

 

[marty9876]

I agree that the metabolization of liquid carbon sources does occur on pretty much any surface in the system or in the water column itself. My understanding was that the pellet biopolymers aren't soluble and don't physically break down, which would prevent them from directly providing a broad carbon source to the rest of the system.

Obviously as carbon is bioaccumulated in the reactor, the bacteria that aren't exported via skimming (or whatever) will eventually die and the carbon that they incorporated can become available to another bacterium somewhere else. In that sense the carbon is widely distributed, but I think it's an important distinction to make. This is just my understanding, but if I'm wrong I'd like to know.

FWIW I have use 4x turnover.

Ahh, a chance to prove Chris wrong on something.... Imma gonna me google away all night on this one! Just teasing.

Cliffs: http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=23369019&postcount=28

The reactors and polymer pellets were originally touted as away to keep bacteria isolated. They simply don't based on numerous anecdotal reports of bacterial blooms and growths outside the reactor. Efforts to confine them and their by products is not only futile but pointless; since, if it were possible it would negate the food advantage and the ability of a skimmer to harvest them out; not to mention the advantage of using all the surface area in the aquarium without snotty nasty buildups when dosing is kept constant and at reasonable levels.

Carbon dosing bible: http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2134105&highlight=organic+carbon+dosing

Read that thread, from memory it's really worth a read.

Official disclaimer: I'm not taking a stance on if carbon dosing works, or is good or bad. Different methods work and don't work for different people, why I don't know.

Unofficial disclaimer: tmz can seem like a grumpy old codger some times, not that he's the end all be all but I think all in all the man is very respected in the hobby and I find most of his posts very valid. He goes hand in hand with Holmes all over the place. The science is right I'm sure; just if it's accomplishing what we want in our tanks is a whole different question.

 

[rlinusc]

I started reading that thread as well. The big question for me is whether or not I can avoid a skimmer and running GFO. Looks like right now most think running a skimmer is needed for carbon dosing which leaves me with just GFO- which is too bad as it is pretty expensive and for me hard to change out. I will continue to read and tinker as my tank is pretty young.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bschowa]

I started reading that thread as well. The big question for me is whether or not I can avoid a skimmer and running GFO. Looks like right now most think running a skimmer is needed for carbon dosing which leaves me with just GFO- which is too bad as it is pretty expensive and for me hard to change out. I will continue to read and tinker as my tank is pretty young.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What kind of reactors are you using if any right now? For gfo and carbon in my avast m5 reactors it takes me about 5 min from start to finish to change them out

When I had the two little fishes reactors it took much longer and they seemed to clog a lot easier but I have also heard that the brs reactors are really nice as well

 

[rlinusc]

I use the BRS ones


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bschowa]

Did some more work in the fish room tonight, cleaned up some wires, and finished piping the mixing station

Please ignore the test kits and fish junk everywhere we are in the process of figuring out a type of shelving unit/better wall orginazation which is hopefully ready for the meeting

 

[Bschowa]

Very fast water changes just have to find a way to export water from the tank faster now than my current siphon into a bucket and then dumping but the filling back up part is a breeze https://vimeo.com/153607337

 

[marty9876]

You get your Ak confirmed?

Quick water changes are great, automatic is even better

 

[Bschowa]

You get your Ak confirmed?

Quick water changes are great, automatic is even better

Yea Alk is still hanging around 8.2-8.4 I tested with Red Sea and api and it was the same as my Hannah checker and I'm guessing until the 4-50 gallon water changes end I will continue to see it around there as the water going in is around 9 my plan is to just let it drop naturally


One day I will hopefully have automatic

 

[adalon]

Very fast water changes just have to find a way to export water from the tank faster now than my current siphon into a bucket and then dumping but the filling back up part is a breeze https://vimeo.com/153607337

[video=youtube;Bt9zSfinwFA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9zSfinwFA[/video]

 

[Jonty]

Use salt with ALK of 7, by the time you get it to drop naturally you will have really done a number on your corals, since the corals are stressed that are probably not taking up alk at a substantial rate the natural drop make take longer than desired.

 

[Bschowa]

I'm going to be grabbing some Red Sea blue bucket today. Reef crystals just seem to be much higher levels than they advertise lately

 

[eschulist]

I'm going to be grabbing some Red Sea blue bucket today. Reef crystals just seem to be much higher levels than they advertise lately

It's a really nice salt. I like that I can mix it just minutes before using it and it will be completely dissolved and clear with steady parameters every time I mix it up.

 

[Bschowa]

It's a really nice salt. I like that I can mix it just minutes before using it and it will be completely dissolved and clear with steady parameters every time I mix it up.

Blue bucket? What are the actual Alk and calcium that you are seeing with yours?

 

[eschulist]

Blue bucket? What are the actual Alk and calcium that you are seeing with yours?

Yep the standard blue bucket.

I mix 5 gallons for my water change at 1.025 and it's about 7.5-7.6 dkh. My tank water is usually lower when I'm due for a change in the 7-7.2 range. So it's probably bringing it up to around 7.3. Now all of these may be off by a slight amount if my Hanna reagent was bad but it would at least be consistently the same even if it was slightly higher or lower ever time I tested.

I don't know the calcium amount as I haven't tested it. The alk was in the range according to the label and paperwork so the calcium should be inline too and it's not quite as important to me as the alkalinity.