![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
#201
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Got into some "Electron Beam Welding" years ago, having to do with the "Joint US-Soviet Space Mission' in the 70's. Life is Is a "Box of Chocolates"! > barryhc ![]()
__________________
The average person has only one breast, one testicle, and one brain. Most people who enter the reefkeeping hobby aren't average. Black and white don't exist, only "shades of gray"! |
#202
|
|||
|
|||
Oh yeah, we did some Hastelloy
Our oil industry pressure xducers where Inconel X750. Anyway we are getting off topic here. |
#203
|
|||
|
|||
Well, a little engineering "banter" there, heh? It's not so difficult, really, and "fppf" is quite right about testing.
It's quite easy to do "before installation" and can be done before gluing as well, so it is well worth it to have no "nagging doubts", once you start pouring in the "sand" ( or whatever ). It wouldn't be all that hard to make a new set of feeder tubes with holes, if you were disappointed with the test results. I put mine on the pool deck, and fired up a 175gph power head. My feeder holes happen to be drilled both in the top and the bottom of the feeder tubes, and when the water squirted up, it was between 6" high near the center, and 5.5" high at the ends. This was of course, on the little hex. version. and it should be carried out on any system before installation. Probably about a 350 gph Powerhead for the 55 gal. version. No "Black Art" after this test. I think that the "delta loss" values calculated previously, are not quite accurate, because of the central manifold tube design, and not having taken into account the 33-50% restriction factor. I will "delve up" some real accurate flow loss calculations for this shortly to include friction loss over tube length, etc., unless of course "fppf" would like to handle this for us ( hint, hint ). And the point made by "fppf", about the ratio of "volume of water in the substrate" to the "volume of substrate, that water is in", is truly a revelation. I really needed that. This might put my 7/64" draw depth value up to 7/8" in the substrate, while it becomes about 5/32" in the plenum area, due to the space the plenum itself takes up, in my particular design. I don't think this calculation of water space taken up by the plenum itself, is of much concern really, but the draw depth is particularly important to me regarding the bacterias' response to Oxygen input. So, now it would only take 8 days for this oxygenated water to reach the plenum ( in 7" depth of substrate ), at 7/8" per day, and 1 "one pint draw" per day. That's still about 4 gal. per month, which is about 20% of the 20 gal. of actual water, in my particular 27 gal. hex tank. Not that bad, as a water change volume. Randy Holmes Farley has shown, that daily water change intervals are no less than 74% as efficient as monthly water changes, of the same total monthly amount. That's good enough for me, at least I'm not using too much water here, and I can change any more out that I like with other methods. I'll keep looking for information on the bacteria, and how they might respond to periodic oxygenation. I really want to keep an Anaerobic ( no oxygen ) area in the bottom 1" or so of the substrate itself, above the plenum, for Phosphate and "nasties" processing. So, off we go again, let's see where it leads us. Thanks all, > barryhc ![]()
__________________
The average person has only one breast, one testicle, and one brain. Most people who enter the reefkeeping hobby aren't average. Black and white don't exist, only "shades of gray"! Last edited by barryhc; 10/08/2005 at 12:07 PM. |
#204
|
|||
|
|||
That sounds like a valid test, one would think the numbers would work out the same or close when the draw is do, aka flip the sign.
Have you gave any thought to how much delta pressure will be needed to get the wanted flow through the sand bed? Maybe the answer to the oxygen problem is to get rid of the oxygen? Maybe a second manifold about an inch or so below the surface of the bed could inject water that is anoxic, the you could flush as much as you want. |
#205
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
> 3/4" of 3-5mm directly above the plenum screen > 3/4" of 2-4mm above that > 3/4" of .7-1.7mm above that >> then the "critter screen", probably about 6mm openings here to stop "critters" only. > 2" of "oolitic" ( sugar ) sand > 2 3/4" of 1-4mm Were up to the surface here, and there wont be any "sandstorms" in my tank, even with flow at 30-40 times the actual water volume. Quote:
I made a thread, for the investigation of proper nomenclature, and these nutrient and compound processing bacteria, called "Bacteria-Anaerobic-Anoxic"? in advanced topics. There some excellent links there. Another one, is "Biological Phosphorous Removal", which has some good information, including anoxic and anaerobic bacterial processing and "forced oxygen level" fluctuations that "they" are using in Municipal Water Systems. This includes "Phosphate processing", and is exceedingly intresting. I'm not throwing out the second manifold idea, but I have to think about it a "good bit". I'm pretty patient about these things, and I like to let "the soup" simmer awhile before it's ready for "serving". Thanks, > barryhc ![]()
__________________
The average person has only one breast, one testicle, and one brain. Most people who enter the reefkeeping hobby aren't average. Black and white don't exist, only "shades of gray"! |
#206
|
|||
|
|||
You know, as I review the previous post with the "layering model" that I'm considering for my particular set-up, it occurs to me, that the lower layer, or layers of the bed, need not be aragonite.
In fact, why has everyone been "running toward" aragonite anyway? Now it's got some porosity to harbor bacteria I believe, but wasn't the big "feature" supposed to be calcium and alkalinity buffering? Isn't this buffering supposed to occur because of low pH, and isn't it because of the substrate "melting" in the low pH, and isn't that what causes some form of "P leaching", that is complained about a lot? Now if we're wasting frequently, then why would we care about the P, if it is going "down the toilet" anyway? But why have our "gravel membrane" melting, and eventually clogging and falling through the lower screen, when we could use a less soluble "substrate down there near the plenum. The bacterial activity "down there is going down the drain as well, so? If calcium and alkalinity can be managed reasonably in a bare bottom system, then certianly, it can be managed in a "substrate" system just as easily. I want the "sand and gravel" because the critters want it! And I like to look at it. ( and the critters ) If we can process some nitrate in there in the upper layers, then good, of course, and if we can dump some waste from that process "out the bottom" while we're at it, then "so much the better"! So, in my case here, if the wasting plenum "avoids the crash", my objective is accomplished. If the system processes nutrients better, then that is very worthwhile also. What is your objective here? "Chime in for sure"! > barryhc ![]()
__________________
The average person has only one breast, one testicle, and one brain. Most people who enter the reefkeeping hobby aren't average. Black and white don't exist, only "shades of gray"! |
#207
|
|||
|
|||
Ouch.
I read the WHHHHOOOOOLLLLEEE thread. I just communicated with LDRHawke via a different bulletin board the other day and it is true that he isn't using this method anymore. (I don't know him at all). However, he stated that he did get it to work well. His reason for stopping using it wasn't because it failed. He just wasn't interested in critters that require sand so it didn't make sense for him to continue with it. BTW....he hasn't stopped experimenting. Check out his bubble filtration in the main tank. http://homepage.mac.com/johnlaurenso...ersonal41.html Quote:
P can leach into the water column with a typical sandbed after a period of time. However, this particular system, if done properly will take care of the problems that lead to this.
__________________
Curt If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. |
#208
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks Curt, So it appears that we have at least one vote for phosphate processing, and we can widen our horizons on what can be used for substrate.
I think that for occcasional wasting, substrate material may be a bit more important, but for frequent wasting, you can probably use just about anything, below the top 1 1/2". Particle size, is a different story, however, and the discussion remains open of course on it's effects relative to bacteria etc. Any thoughts Curt, or anyone, on specific oxygen saturation levels and the related bacterial activity, as well as bacterial recovery time? Thanks again Curt, need any "Murine or Tylenol" after that long read. ![]() ![]()
__________________
The average person has only one breast, one testicle, and one brain. Most people who enter the reefkeeping hobby aren't average. Black and white don't exist, only "shades of gray"! |
#209
|
|||
|
|||
Ok folks, so I'm "bumping the thread". I have stated before, that this is a "long term" project, and I do not expect it fail.
Some people "do or will" consider this, too complex to "fiddle with". I submit that a captive reef system is complex, and that will not "go away". I do expect that when enough is known about the bacterialogical processes, and how they are affected by "forced downflow", that a considerable level of improvement will have been identified, for those reef keepers who wish for whatever reason, to operate a reef system that utilizes "substrate" for the well being of animals that prefer or require it, and/or for the enthusiast who simply prefers "the look" that is coincidentally available. Others, may have ideas about the implementation, and insights or concerns, regarding the health of the bacterial populations within the "substrate". I will state again that this only a supplement, or sub-function of the "system" as a whole and that good husbandry, water flow, skimming, species seletion, parameter testing, and on et. al., is necessary to maintain any reef system for the long term. Thanks to all, and happy reef keeping > barryhc ![]()
__________________
The average person has only one breast, one testicle, and one brain. Most people who enter the reefkeeping hobby aren't average. Black and white don't exist, only "shades of gray"! |
#210
|
|||
|
|||
Hey! I was just thinking that it was about time to bump the thread again. Have you starting sucking water yet? If so, did you test the waste? Any numbers?
I just about have my grid built. Silly hardware store ran out of 1/2" crosses, so I have to wait for a bit. Cheers! Andy
__________________
--Andy "And chase the frothy bubbles, / While the world is full of troubles. . . ." --W. B. Yeats |
#211
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Oh well, I will start drawing water from the plenum pretty soon. I will start with a "manual draw" of 1 pint, once a day. That is supposed to be 7/64" of water column "down flow" each day. If you have been following the thread closely, you should understand that this represents approx. 7/8" of "downflow distance" in "the substrate" itself. Please ask about this if you do not understand what is being said here, it is absolutely crucial to the understanding of bacterial populations, and their recovery rate. Thanks for posting, this going to work, I am quite sure. > barryhc ![]()
__________________
The average person has only one breast, one testicle, and one brain. Most people who enter the reefkeeping hobby aren't average. Black and white don't exist, only "shades of gray"! |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Since the last time I read this thread, I've been running around with my head chopped off. Someone please remind me. Has there been any discussion of an inline pH monitor to determine the pH of the water being drawn off? That could be very useful IMO at determining if you've drawn off too much water or if a smaller amount of water was drawn off too quickly. Bacterial recovery time is so difficult for me to wrap my head around. Here's why. Provided the proper Oxygen environment, the only thing that needs to occur to have a very quick recovery time is sufficient nutrients. The bacterial population grows on a logarithmic basis every 30 minutes or so IIRC. 1 bacterium would be 2 and in 30 minutes you would have 4 and so on. Look at these numbers and you can see just how quickly they can grow. 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512, etc. Since we are going to be starting out with much higher populations to begin with our only limiting factor is going to be how quickly the combination of diffusion and bacterial migration will get Nitrogenous compounds into the sandbed.
__________________
Curt If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
You see, I have always felt "instinctually" that this wasn't going to be that much of a problem, for the very reasons that you state, but, there has been so much "riff-raff" about how the "entire bacterial population" is going to "be destroyed", that I have found it difficult to proceed. There is going to be a "gradation" in the oxygen level of the substrate, and that gradation is going to be "modified" by "Wasting", as I have stated "forever", but the downflow can br tuned to cause this gradation to occur in the way that "we" desire, If we can determine what it is that we desire. So, whether it is pH, or oxygen, or better yet both, the evaluation of "effluent" is going to be "key" to developing "the system". I don't think there is any way for us to know ahead of time, and the reason I've been working so hard thus far, "ahead of time", is in order to develop the "substrate model", and you can see that I have gone to a "layering scheme", which drives a lot of people "bonkers". I have the little hex tank, which is my little experiment, but I'm getting ready for a 200 to 300 gal. tank in December, and I will have decided about the "substrate model" by then. So, Curt, I think you are right on here, with the "testing", and I hope to start "drawing and testing" within a week. Please stay with us here, your input is highly valuable. > barryhc ![]()
__________________
The average person has only one breast, one testicle, and one brain. Most people who enter the reefkeeping hobby aren't average. Black and white don't exist, only "shades of gray"! |
#214
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
You could do this exact same thing without adding sand. Airborne bacteria would be in there fairly quickly. Bacteria are highly adaptive. They don't merely migrate to the proper areas, they will create their own environment. There is Nitrification AND denitrification occuring in a biofilm so thin on your front glass that you can see through it. They can create any Oxygen condition they need to. Can these biofilms handle the typical bioload of a reef tank? NOT EVEN CLOSE. That's why the Berlin method of adding LR completely changed this hobby. More surface area=more bacteria=more nitrification. Quote:
BTW, the reason I think that people go "bonkers" is because there is no hard and fast rule. People beg to know watts per gallon for lighting, gallons per hour of flow, etc. This is an unknown that you are delving into and you are correct, experimentation is the only way.
__________________
Curt If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. |
#215
|
||||||
|
||||||
Quote:
I have found this originally in the "Goemans and Gamble" literature, but also in very many other "professional studies and dissertations". Waste treatment is "rampant" with such discussions, as well as some advanced "disections" of "Vodka Dosing" and similar "forced bacterial activity" endeavors. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Bacteria populations should not need to "re-establish", for any depth or distance greater than that which causes them "no difficulty whatsoever". High frequency wasting, should create an oxygen gradation that is effectively "permanent and continuous". Any "recovery" should only need to occur over a very short distance, like 1/8" to possibly as high as 1" in the substrate, and "never" any "oxygen flushing" of the substrate, that would require any re-establishing of the bacteria population to occur over any period of time longer than "SAY" 1 or 2 hours, and for not more than a "distance or depth" of more than about 1/2". Quote:
Quote:
I've been a bit "picky" with you here Curt, but it is for accuracy, and not for offense or defense of "anything". Please stay with us, I particularly appreciate your input. More of what you have stated here has been taken "to heart", than might be immediately obvious! Thanks again, barryhc ![]()
__________________
The average person has only one breast, one testicle, and one brain. Most people who enter the reefkeeping hobby aren't average. Black and white don't exist, only "shades of gray"! |
#216
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
--Andy "And chase the frothy bubbles, / While the world is full of troubles. . . ." --W. B. Yeats |
#217
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
The "lower layers" below the "critter screen" are intended to remain "stable", and allow for these fluctuations in the "upper layers". Good points "Fish". > barryhc ![]()
__________________
The average person has only one breast, one testicle, and one brain. Most people who enter the reefkeeping hobby aren't average. Black and white don't exist, only "shades of gray"! |
#218
|
|||
|
|||
To really explain why I think channeling is okay, I think I need to explain my theory of why DSBs "leak" (I hate that term) phosphate. So please bear with me and please tell me if I'm way off-base (or even a little off-base
![]() All populations of critters are limited by many factors. Now DSBs give bacteria huge chunks of real estate to call home, but it is still a finite resource and they reproduce like mad, so living space can eventually be a limiting factor of the bacteria population. The bacteria in our sand bed not only participate in the nitrogen cycle, they also bind phosphate. Not much (they're small), but there are enormous numbers of them. When a bacterium dies, the stuff it's binding in it's "body" gets released. A lot of the phosphate we put into our systems never makes it back out again. If you take all of these factors into consideration, you can see that the bacteria in the sand bed will take in and hold the phosphate we add, PLUS all the phosphate that's been released from every bacterial generation, right up to the point where the bacterial population runs out of room to expand. At that point, there will no longer be phosphorous uptake (by the bacterial population). So the question you have is: how does this apply to anything? I want to drain my DSB infrequently to a) get any crap out of the bed I can and b) to kill off a subset of the bacteria to open up real estate for expansion. If I drain infrequently it gives the sand bed time to settle back down and the bacteria time to re-colonize. That's my reasoning. Please shoot holes in it. ![]() Andy
__________________
--Andy "And chase the frothy bubbles, / While the world is full of troubles. . . ." --W. B. Yeats |
#219
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
>Firstly, I am lazy, and I hate water changes. I am absolutely dead serious here. Frequent Wasting will cause a "continuous water change" to occur automaticaly, and forever. For me that is a very nice feature. "Continuous water changes" are 74% as effecient as monthly water changes of the same monthly volume, and that is good enough for me. At the 1 pint per day for my system, that is equivalent to a 17% water change monthly. I highly prefer this continuous condition to "all at once" water changing. I would have to go to considerably more trouble to put together an automated water change system here, so "complexity wise" this is just easier and less expensive anyway. >>Secondly, frequent wasting will "stretch" the bacterial populations, causing the aerobic zone to be a "bit deeper". This top Aerobic zone is only about 1/2 to 1" thick to begin with, and may become up to 1/2" thicker, but not more, so what is the problem with that? The "low oxygen" zone comes below this where most processing of Nitrite to Nitrate occurs, and it is generally regarded to be only about .5 to 1mm thick. This is where "non-obligate-Anaerobic-faculative- bacteria" do Nitrate "processing. This is generally accepted fact by many "authorities" on the subject, and if it does not "sit well" with anyone, then this is where the bacterialogical discussion needs to continue! The "stretching" of the bacteria populations, could increase the depth of this "low oxygen" zone to between 3-6mm thick, which would represent a 4 to 8 times factor of improved Nitrate processing power. I like that too! So now, "we" have used up about 1 1/2" to 2" of the top level of the substrate so far, and in my 7" deep "substrate model", that still leaves us with at least 5" of remaining substrate for the Anaerobic zone. Gee, I don't see that as being inadequate, and it allows probably at least another 3 to 4" of substrate to account for my conceptual errors, or whatever else a person ( or critter )might want it for. This "oxygen gradation" will be controlled by frequency and "draw depth" as necessary, and THERE WILL NOT BE OXYGENATED WATER anywhere near the plenum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! period. >>>Thirdly, this process will be "effectively continuous", which eliminates concerns about "what happened when I wasted the plenun". There is no "when I wasted the plenum", because I am "always wasting the plenum". So while some ( or a lot of ) "diffusion" will continue to occur, relative to the "water column", in the top 2" or so, the nastier processes "below" have plenty of room, and most of it is "on it's way down" anyway! It is not undergoing some questionable "big change". That's my reasoning. Are there any holes in it? ![]() Thanks, > barryhc ![]()
__________________
The average person has only one breast, one testicle, and one brain. Most people who enter the reefkeeping hobby aren't average. Black and white don't exist, only "shades of gray"! |
#220
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
here's a random sulphur based extract that demonstrates the concept, there are millions of accredited marine biofilm articles out there. http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/65/11/5107 i.e. do you accept that biofilms coat every surface and in themselves are capable of completing the full nitrogen/sulfur//phosphate/e.t.c cycle at the micron level? Isn't all that remains a method of gettind the most detritus out of system before it has chance to cycle in the biofilms? I'm a technologist by trade who neglected bio after further education and am also enjoying the learning of a new area in later days ![]() Jerel could tell us in a few words, but that simply would not be right, some direction would be nice though ![]() ![]() I apologise if this was covered earlier in the tread. edit: another usefull article http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/62/12/4641
__________________
just maybe.. Last edited by reefclown; 10/20/2005 at 07:19 PM. |
#221
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
I like the idea of stretching the bacterial populations. That's good. Quote:
Are you going to run an O2 or pH probe down into the bed to check O2 levels? Or do I remember a discussion about this earlier. It all gets a bit fuzzy.... ![]() Cheers! Andy
__________________
--Andy "And chase the frothy bubbles, / While the world is full of troubles. . . ." --W. B. Yeats |
#222
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
This is from reading in the link that you supplied: Quote:
1mm is the thickness that I stated previously regarding the "low oxygen" zone. This value is considered to be valid, in "oolitic" sand, and would be considerably thicker in a larger particle size of substrate. I do not have any visible bio-films in my tank that are thick enough to see. This may be because of the brittle stars, and snail and crab populations. I get an exceedingly thin film on the glass after about 2 weeks, but since I clean the glass weekly . . . . My live rock has coraline and feather dusters, and otherwise looks like "cooked rock". Same condition for 6 months. I don't stir, I don't vacuum, I don't siphon. I have proper aquascaping, 25 x flow, and skimming. Quote:
Quote:
Don't allow detritus to collect in your system, REGARDLESS OF "BOTTOM TREATMENT"!!!!!!!!! Read the first post in this thread, right on page 1 of coursre. This thread is for those who WANT TO RUN SUBSTRATE IN THEIR SYSTEM FOR WHATEVER REASON ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I don't mind that much if you are happy with BB. They are fine in very many cases, however, PLEASE read all of page 1, and the last two pages of this thread, if you expect to offer meaningful comments. > barryhc ![]() ![]() ![]()
__________________
The average person has only one breast, one testicle, and one brain. Most people who enter the reefkeeping hobby aren't average. Black and white don't exist, only "shades of gray"! |
#223
|
|||
|
|||
I'm sorry, but I must take us a little off-topic (and we are trying to avoid that).
I don't understand why BB tank people use live rock. So many make the argument that sand beds are mysteries and therefore they don't want them in the tank. Isn't the live rock a mystery, too? Wouldn't bare egg crate shelves serve the philosophy a bit better? Okay, rant off. No more.
__________________
--Andy "And chase the frothy bubbles, / While the world is full of troubles. . . ." --W. B. Yeats |
#224
|
||||
|
||||
Barry,
firstly my apologies for not having read the thread, having now read it I can see why your response is somewhat hostile. Quote:
In the context of this tread my last statement was insenstive/unconstructive as was any implied reference to BB, please disregard. OK, hopefully misunderstanding cleared up and we are on a CLEAN SLATE. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now, let me attempt to rephrase what I was meaning to ask. The thread appears to be evaluating a method of controlling bacterial activity within a sediment layer. And the core of the discussion looks at the effects of bacterial activity within that sediment under varying circumstances. I was simply meaning to ask what activity you believe occurs at a smaller scale, for example on the bacterial film that coats a single grain of sand. Is this bacterial film capable of completing the full nitrogen cycle. i.e does the bacterial film covering the grain of sand contain aerobic, anoxic and anaerobic zones/bacteria within it? I'm simply asking you to consider a lower denominator, as it may aid in the understanding of how the sediment will operate when the oxygen gradient changes. from the link provided Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
peace ![]()
__________________
just maybe.. |
#225
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
But I require it for the critters, not for "processing". I am going to have sand and gravel in my tank, FOR THE CRITTERS period! Quote:
Quote:
![]() ![]() This is in fresh water, not salt water, and they are not "exactly" the same, but . . . . . Time will tell, I'm sure! Quote:
I need to find out more on this. I had intended to monitor O2 and Phosphate in the effluent, and the P is still relevant to monitor here, but oxygen may change as it travels through the plenum piping and could be changed considerably if it takes two days for plenum water to actually exit the end of the plenum piping. This might be the case depending on the volume of the plenum piping, even while the "draw"remains "high flow" and "short duration" ( like 5 seconds). You know, as I'm writing this, I'm wondering about a DIY "water extractor", that would at least let us get a representative "sample" of the water, to test "outside" of the tank, as usual. It could be made from 1/4" I.D. PVC by 1" long, capped, and plumbed with 1/8" I.D. tubing, then run outside of the tank. This would be constructed like a little "micro plenum". Several of these, say, one for every inch of substrate depth, could be installed, along with the plenum, and drawn from, before and after "wasting" to monitor various parameters, and fluctuations. Please don't get me wrong here, "Fish" or anyone else. I still believe that several versions of this "wasting" idea, might be found to work well, and I'm not really opposed to other versions, but I still find the "High Frequency" type to fit my expectations thus far into the investigation. If I run into a hitch, especially with Bacteria, I'll run from it like a forest fire, but that is not what I have been finding. "Fish", what think ye, of the "micro plenum water sampler"? > barryhc ![]()
__________________
The average person has only one breast, one testicle, and one brain. Most people who enter the reefkeeping hobby aren't average. Black and white don't exist, only "shades of gray"! |
|
|