Anyone try this type of drain? A "skimmer pipe" from drilled holes? (pic)

[nemo g]

(x-post, looking for more input)

finally decided on a 65g tank, now id like to make the most of it.

ive also decided to drill and recoup any of the space that would have been used by an internal overflow. so heres my idea:

<img src="http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/116775nemo-g-drain.jpg"/>

as you can see, the drainage skimmer pipe is just pvc with slots cut into it (just like in a maxi-jet mod). if done correctly, the pipe can be twisted to get the desired water level.

i havent decided yet as to how many holes i want to drill. if i just want two and go with some type of manifold, or do the four that you see in the diagram.

also trying to decide if this is the best/preferred design. i have also considered two smaller pipes on each side. the aim is to reduce the need for internal devices and increase the efficiency of skimming the waters surface.

i have seen similar designs with plexi, creating an entire area of the rear of the tank just for skimming. im not sure if all that space is needed (unless the drainage flow demands it) and i dont find it particularly appealing.

has anyone tried this? results? images?

[der Riff-Konig]

I think it sparks thought and initially sounds good. Personally I would just go to one central drain, less drilling.

[goda]

iv done itbefor and was extreamly disapointed witht he ammount of flow that goes throu it
the pipe size will need to have thousands of holes and be atleast 1.5 inch diamiter befor you would even reach 1000 gph

[nemo g]

reef king: im gonna have someone else drill (with a guarantee), and the extra hole will ensure it can handle more flow.

goda: the "holes" is where you most likely encountered the problem.

with my design (or whom ever did it first), they are skimmer Slots, just like on a overflow box, with an appropriate size, maybe 1/4"-1/2".

like this, but on a obviously across the length of a much larger pipe:

(image credit to "mupham")
<img src="http://reefcentral.com/gallery/data/500/76468MJ-parts.jpg"/>

[trippyl]

one thing that you should bear in mind is that the teeth will get clogged with gunk (especially in a new tank). You need to be able to clean the teeth thoroughly or risk a flood.

My overflow is basically 1/4 of an acrylic rectangle that I siliconed to the back wall of my tank, so that it covered the bulkheads. Then i fit eggcrate in the OF so that it strains the water before entering the overflow. I can pull out the egg crate and clean it whenever I want.

[nemo g]

tripply:

i have already taken that into account. that is why there are so many "teeth" and why they will be between 1/4-1/2 wide. i have never seen such thick teeth get clogged, but if they did they would be easily accessed, and only a few at a time.

worst case scenario, is to ammend the pipe by cutting in half (or close to it) and just adding a mesh over it (maybe two layers), for much easier removal and cleaning and flow.

[trippyl]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6970656#post6970656 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by nemo g
tripply:

i have already taken that into account. that is why there are so many "teeth" and why they will be between 1/4-1/2 wide. i have never seen such thick teeth get clogged,

To quote Yoda, "you will my friend, you will".

Seriously, the gunk will build up. As I said, I use egg crate as my strainer, and it has 1/2 inch spaces, and even THAT cloggs over time.

I would not use a strainer, that would mean almost daily cleaning.

[nemo g]

using the 1/2" egg crate is the same as me using 1/2" slots. except the slots will be around 3"x1/2" rectangles (wrapped around pipe) instead of 1/2" squares. so they should last longer between cleaning. i hope

nonetheless, this is really a mute point, as it has nothing to do with the design itself as almost every type of skimming overflow device will have such teeth and will need to be cleaned when necessary.

in any case, as yoda would say "do or do not, there is no try". so im sure this will be just one of the many configurations i will try, that is after i decide how many holes ill be drilling.

thanks for the input :beer:

[Ixthys]

I made one of these. Drilled 2 BH's in the back of the tank, and used street els to connect the slotted pvc and BHs.

I thought for sure it was a great idea, but it was very noisy and the flow didn't seem as good as just having a strainer in each BH. I have tried it a few times on the same tank, each time hoping it will work, but no luck.

[nemo g]

hey ixthys, nice use of chi by the way, but wheres the theta :D.

thanks for the input, but something is unclear. when you said it "didnt work" to what exactly are you referring to?

if it is just the matter of flow, this does not necessarily make this less efficient; and it can be overcome with bigger holes and pipe.

in any case, the best reason to use such a device would be to improve skimming efficiency. with this type of drain the water being removed is pure "skim", as it is all from the surface opposed to just a strainer on a bulkhead that drains water from 1-2" under the surface, retarding any active "skimming".

so although the flow may be less in comparison, the actual filtration could be much better. and flow, as for water movement, could be improved in a myriad of ways. but there is only one way to improve skimming efficacy. and that is to enlarge the surface area being skimmed, which forces a thin layer to be drained. the larger the surface area, ie skimmer box, the thinner the layer of water is that is removed.

if you can, try doing an experiment. attach the drain to your skimmer (best way to get a good indicator) and try both drains for about a week. take a look at the skimming efficiency.

since the nutrients like to collect at the surface of the water column, the pipe drain should collect far more than the strainer would.

if you do, let me know how it goes.

[Pez Vela]

I have an overflow like that in my fuge. I had my slots cut at an angle and left one end equipped with a short cut 90° elbow as an emergency overflow if the slots were to get clogged by Chaeto, snails or whatever...... I like how they work becasuse they skim the surface in a wider pattern rather than just in the corner(s). If that makes a big difference, I have no idea.

Mike

[Carman34L]

Been done before; most recently by a local friend, Spazz, he does custom acrylic work, and I must say makes the best skimmer on the market. He also makes tank wide overflows to your needs. PM him.

[Ixthys]

Nemo g-

In ancient times, Christians were widely persecuted; to identify themselves to each other in secret, they devised an acronym, I.X.TH.Y.S. (That is, Iota, Chi, Theta, Upsilon, Sigma IXTHYS is an awkward mix of letters transliterated from Greek with letters that look like Greek letters, The acronym stood for "Iesous Christos Theou Huios Soter," which is to say "Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior." And it's a real acronym (not just an initialism), because in Greek it spells "ichthys," which means "fish."

How's that for "theta"! :D

I'm definitely not saying I worked out all the kinks or to give up on it completely, but... I can't get it to work acceptably.

[Ixthys]

As far as skimming efficiency- I know several of the "experts" insist that you must skim the surface. I, for the most part, don't agree as long as you run a big skimmer.

Let me first say that we do definitely accumulate proteins on the surface of our tanks. No contention there.

But, I also run a big skimmer. I feed at night, and run the skimmer 24/7. By the next am, my skimmer has collected about 3 or 4 cups of wet skimmate that looks like the food I put in the night before. The rest of the day it puts out minimal.

I don't shut down my skimmer at night when I feed. I honestly can't imagine anyone's skimmer powerful and efficient enough to take all of their food out in an hour. It may start taking out "some" right away, but in my opinion, it takes hours to get it all back out (and I'm positive I'm not getting ALL of it out!)

Anyway, just my 2 cents. I do run overflows on most of my tanks, but that is b/c I don't like to see the protein accumulation on the surface, and I also think it may minimally decrease light transmission.

[nemo g]

i already knew that. at least thats one thing i picked up from my religious studies and philosophy degree :D

the reason i pointed it out in the first place is that most people incorreclty assume the "x" (chi) is for the eks sound (as in xray). it never occured to me that some one would use it, and spell it correctly.

so cheers to us :beer: for understanding a bit of the glossa Ellinikos.

[Ixthys]

You made my day!

Cheers back at ya! :beer: