Plenums and the wasting "option"

[barryhc]

Originally posted by salty joe
Membrane?

Did you read about substrate, gravel, plenum, eggcrate, screen, "critter blocking" screen, PARTICLE MIGRATION, etc., earlier in this thread?

Let me know if it remains a question.

Yes, I did read that but I don't understand how gravel will stop fine sand from finding its way into the plenum.

A grain size of 2mm dia. will effectively block "migration" of "particles" down to .31mm dia.! Smaller particles will pass through.

How often do "we" change out "membranes" in RO units.

I don't want anything clogging the plenum. .3mm dia. particles will pass right through the .040" dia. ( 1mm ) holes that I have in my plenum. My plenum is not going to get clogged.

I will post a graphic representation some time soon. It's just Geometry.

Thanks > barryhc

[salty joe]

My concern is sand ruining the shutoff valve. I look forward to checking out your graphics.
Thanks,
Joe

[barryhc]

Originally posted by salty joe
My concern is sand ruining the shutoff valve. I look forward to checking out your graphics.
Thanks,
Joe

Thanks Joe, while I remain very interested in the Nitrate and Phosphate capabilities of the "wasting Plenum", It is really the plumbing outside the aquarium, that I haven't found time to put that much effort into.

I'm not overly concerned that it will represent a problem, but, it is questions like these that need to be dealt with, in order to have a "reliable" system.

Firstly though, I see it here, as a "design solution", to accomplish the original objective first, and then deal with "subordinate problems" in a practical fashion, without compromising the original objective.

I see the original objective as being the design and use of a "wasting Plenum" to process Nitrate, phosphate, and "whatever else", that we can process, or "waste". I am happy thus far with the "internal" portion of the design.

It is certianly time now, to consider "in ernest" the remainder ( outside portion ) of the system, and your concern here is appreciated.

My test setup is going "over the top", and then . . . . There will be many configurations.

My "big one" setup is going to be about 200 gal., and will probably be drilled etc., if I can pull that off.

Where can I get a glass tank with acrylic "bottom"?

I expect that particles etc. are going to exit the "plenum", and I particularly want them to. I believe that is important to the original function.

I remain intrigued with your original 2 valve "U tube" drain system. A "particulate trap" or filter may need to be incorporated.

If "we" trap this stuff in the substrate or plenum, how are we going to clean or change this once "filled up"? Get it?

Let's work on it some more and see what happens.

Thanks, > barryhc

[salty joe]

I plan on using Southdown sand and constructing a deep sand bed, only my sand bed would have a plenum underneath. I don't know how small Southdown sand particles are, but they are pretty tiny. So I do not envision any sizable particles working their way through the Southdown sand to clog things up, but maybe I'm wrong. I do know that Southdown sand is real hard on plastic parts that move. So I guess I was not quite right when I said no moving parts, there is a valve to turn. Maybe a two inch drain trap before the 1 inch valve would catch the sand. I have seen traps with a plug at the bottom to unscrew to release whatever is in there.

Concerning the U tube, the same thing could be achieved by running a horizontal piece of 1 inch pipe from the plenum drain directly to a verticle piece of PVC pipe (two or 3 inches perhaps) that is taller than the water level in the aquarium. Of course, you would still need a valve at the plenum drain and another at the very bottom of the vertical PVC.
Joe

[barryhc]

Thanks Joe. I agree that nothing significant is going to get through the Southdown Sand to block the plenum. It would likely be the Southdown Sand itself that would clog the plenum.

A shallow layer of 2-4mm gravel on top of the plenum screen should inhibit particles larger than .3 mm from getting into the plenum area to block your feeder holes. Then the "Southdown ", of course.

Only particles very close to the feeder hole size can block the hole. Try blocking a 1mm hole with a 2mm particle, It will fall away from the hole when the "flow" is off.

I'm working on that "Graphic" now. I have a 3 hr. scanner driver download "in progress". If "the old scanner" will run on the new xp drivers, I'll have some graphics this afternoon. ( I hope )

A 1.5" I.D. pipe holds .0077 gal. per linear inch, so 16" of this pipe would hold one pint of water. So for my case, 15" of this up to just above the tanks water level, with some 1/2" I.D. piping below, ought to give the 1 pint "waste volume" for my particular setup.

Am I with you here Joe?

My test setup ( the 27 gal. hex ) is going over the tank top with "U" tube, and then back down.

This means that I have some "intermediate volume" to consider "only when checking the effluent".

Otherwise, I don't think the second "U tube" collector that you describe causes any difficulty for anyone without "drilled tanks", like me. ( and obviously not for those "with" drilled tanks )

Automation and timing, are coming up soon here, for me, and anyone else who wants to use the "High Frequency" type.

Heh voodoody, can you send us to LDRHawkes' previous thread. I know he was using his computer with X10 technology at one point. Review would be prudent here.

Thanks all! > barryhc

[barryhc]

Joe, now that I'm correctly remembering the original "value" of your "U tube" idea, It seems that the U tube gizmo is going to allow us to accomplish a specific "draw volume", without any fancy timing for the draw volume itself.

Then "we" only have to time for the number of draws "per day", or "per week", or whatever. This is much easier than trying to switch pumps on and off for 5 second intervals etc.

We could also put a volume adjustment pipe into the collection pipe, from the top, to fine tune "volume" after the original installation. Now we don't have to be "overly fussy" about the exact draw volume , at the time of installation.

The "system" remains adjustable.

What do you Think? Thanks, > barryhc

[salty joe]

I don't plan on using any pipes with holes in them in the plenum. Just a deep sand bed with a plenum space underneath. The tank would have a drain in the middle of the bottom. When the plenum drain valve is opened, the entire plenum would be under negative pressure. It seems to me that this would pull fairly evenly across the entire bottom of the deep sand bed. And if the sand bed is constructed from Southdown sand, it would probably be a fairly slow draw.

To start with, I am considering draining about 10% of the plenum area once a week and fine tune from their.

The ability to adjust the volume of the collection pipe sounds good. I don't quite understand what you mean though. Details please.

[barryhc]

Originally posted by salty joe
I don't plan on using any pipes with holes in them in the plenum. Just a deep sand bed with a plenum space underneath. The tank would have a drain in the middle of the bottom. When the plenum drain valve is opened, the entire plenum would be under negative pressure. It seems to me that this would pull fairly evenly across the entire bottom of the deep sand bed. And if the sand bed is constructed from Southdown sand, it would probably be a fairly slow draw.

Yes, I see your plan. The entire area would be under negative pressure, however, that "vacuum" would not be "even". I can't say just how much imbalance that would represent. The thicker the plenum area ( water only ), the more even the vacuum. The slow draw would also help the "even-ness".

Originally posted by salty joe
To start with, I am considering draining about 10% of the plenum area once a week and fine tune from their..

I like the total monthly volume. At least we can fine tune this system, heh?

The ability to adjust the volume of the collection pipe sounds good. I don't quite understand what you mean though. Details please. [/B][/QUOTE]

The "particle migration" graphic first, I still have about 1 hour left on the scanner driver download.

If you put a smaller capped tube down into the "collection riser tube", the collection tube can't hold as much water.

Thanks > barryhc

[salty joe]

If you put a smaller capped tube down into the "collection riser tube", the collection tube can't hold as much water.


Good idea!

[barryhc]

Thanks Joe, My 3 hr. driver download failed. I'm on the phone with HP. "Voice-mail tag"!

A threaded adapter at the top, or whatever, with vent holes, to allow filling, and keep bugs out. Change to whatever you want whenever you want. How could it get any easier?

Thanks again > barryhc

[voodoody]

The link to the original controlled plenum wasting thread is here:dsb heresey

Salty Joe, please explain your plan in more detail.

I don't plan on using any pipes with holes in them in the plenum. Just a deep sand bed with a plenum space underneath. The tank would have a drain in the middle of the bottom. When the plenum drain valve is opened, the entire plenum would be under negative pressure. It seems to me that this would pull fairly evenly across the entire bottom of the deep sand bed. And if the sand bed is constructed from Southdown sand, it would probably be a fairly slow draw.

I am not sure how this could be done without "short circuiting".

[barryhc]

Originally posted by voodoody
The link to the original controlled plenum wasting thread is here:dsb heresey

I read most of the thread, the first 3 pages, and the last 3 that LDRHawke posted in. He had a lot of people interested, and was doing some very very nice work. ( too bad we can't contact him )

Thanks for the link, I will probably review it some more. Hawke was way ahead of everybody there, and obviously ran into some Nitrate processing difficulties.

You might be right about the anaerobic zone, for his "schedule". My 3 draws of one pint each day came "almost directly" from Hawkes' information.

You might be moving way too far away with the 4-6 mos. frequency, and I may be "far too often" at 3 times a day. Whatever volume and frequency makes the bacteria "happy" should be the best.

I think I'm quite concerned with the "fabric cover" that Hawke was using over the plenum. That sounds like a "membrane", and it sounds like a "clogging" mechanism, that could promote "channeling", and also contribute to strange "floc" and associated bacteria populations, that could further promote "channeling", and I'm not sure whatever else. Whew!

I really think that we should be looking for reduced restriction, from the top of the substrate, down to the plenum, to avoid any kind of "plugging", or "clogging" anywhere in the substrate.

In any case, we have several seriously interested members with "us" here, and remember that "many" good and useful systems may result.

It is most likely that all "versions" of the "Wasting" system, are going to benefit from our understanding of the bacterial populations, and "oxygen gradations" that are being "promoted", with whatever version of "Wasting" that is being used.

Again, I am looking currently into the "High Frequency" type, and I have given a fairly good description of the plenum construction and also a "substrate model", for this particular type.

Your version might be deemed the "Low Frequency" type, and "might" deserve some different, or possibly even less demanding, construction or substrate requirements.

Long term use and testing will, of course, help all of us to learn, and then refine our use of a wasting system, to an improved potential.

I think we're having to work harder at this than the "DSB camp", or the "BB camp", because there just isn't enough data or "feedback" from the use of "wasting", and we will simply have to develop it.

None of us are in competition here, let's keep the good ideas, and reading links coming.

Thanks all! > barryhc

[DougSupreme]

here some pics of my plenum piping based on Ldrhawke's recommendations.





I used a 0.031 dia drill bit to make holes in the piping approx 3 inches apart. I also staggered the holes one at 10 o'clock and the next at 2 o'clock, alternating down the length of the pipes.

["Umm, fish?"]

DougSupreme,

That looks good. However, I'd be concerned that you don't have much in the way of crossing pipes. Yours will work, but you'll get much more even flow if you have more cross pipes. More like this:

|=|=|=|

than like this:

|===|

[barryhc]

Originally posted by DougSupreme
here some pics of my plenum piping based on Ldrhawke's recommendations.

I used a 0.031 dia drill bit to make holes in the piping approx 3 inches apart. I also staggered the holes one at 10 o'clock and the next at 2 o'clock, alternating down the length of the pipes.

Doug, that looks a fairly large tank. what size is it?

How many holes, just out of curiosity? How did you cover the plenum?

Have you been running the system, and can you report any results?

Welcome to the thread, and thanks for posting! > barryhc

[barryhc]

So, "Umm fish?", are you still in the "Low Frequency" category of interest?

It is perfectly fine, if you are, but I think there will be differences between "High" and "Low" frequency "wasting", and it would be beneficial to all concerned, if the type of "wasting" that you are developing is known, for clarity of communications.

Nice to see you back, and Thanks, > barryhc

[barryhc]

By the way Doug, I got a look at your gallery, and that in the wall implementation is really really nice. Is that about a 150 gal.?

Thanks again, > barryhc

[DougSupreme]

Originally posted by barryhc
Doug, that looks a fairly large tank. what size is it?

How many holes, just out of curiosity? How did you cover the plenum?

Have you been running the system, and can you report any results?

Welcome to the thread, and thanks for posting! > barryhc

It is a Perfecto 120G 5'L x 18"W

I have no idea how many holes, I suppose I could figure the number, I seem to remember that the holes were 3" apart. I simply wrapped the piping in landscape tarp( the fabric kind) and poured the southdown on top of that to a depth of about 4.5"


I have had the system up and running for over year. Unfortunately, I haven't really been recording any results up to this point, and my tank is scheduled to be torn down for a move in the next two weeks. When we move to the new house, I plan on setting the tank back up, so I should be able to record results .

["Umm, fish?"]

Nice to be back . I had to run off and be sick with my child and then have a birthday . Sucks getting old.

I am still in the "Low Frequency" category. I just think DSBs do what they do very, very well for a certain length of time. So, I just can't see screwing around with anything on a regular basis. Depending on what I find when I start sucking out of the bottom of the bed, I may pull about an inch off the bottom of the tank every 6 months or so and see how it goes.

I'll be really interested to see how the tank parameters change with each pull.

I have a theory, though. Tell me what you think. I think that no matter how we try we are going to get some channeling in our wasting. Further, I think that the anaerobic bacteria in these areas will survive our draws with no problems (since the water is channeling around them). And I think that these bacteria will very quickly re-colonate the rest of the SB after the draw, thus mitigating the parameter spikes that might occur.

I guess I'd better get experimenting.

But that's why I remain in the "Low Frequency/Higher Volume" category. So, what do you think?

So, "Umm fish?", are you still in the "Low Frequency" category of interest?

It is perfectly fine, if you are, but I think there will be differences between "High" and "Low" frequency "wasting", and it would be beneficial to all concerned, if the type of "wasting" that you are developing is known, for clarity of communications.

Nice to see you back, and Thanks, > barryhc

[barryhc]

voodoody, let's get back into some of these "zones" again. You had said that Hawke might have had a problem with "losing" his "anaerobic zone".

I'm not sure, that I want to lose it either, but, let's be very careful about calling a "zone" either "anaerobic", or "anoxic".

I don't think that you have made any errors regarding these terms, but I have seen them used "interchangably", or even worse, "in reverse", on many occasions.

This can lead to much confusion, and then controversy, based on miscommunication, and not misconception, both of which lead to most of the controversy.

Let's try to keep everybody straight about "Anaerobic" and "Anoxic" areas, and bacterial populations, as we proceed.

Now, about this "Anaerobic zone", I'm not sure why we need it, I'll admit. So as we try to explain its importance, let's try to keep the correct meaning ( or interpretaion ) of Anaerobic and Anoxic in mind, at least so that "I" won't get confused.

This should be beneficial to the rest of "us" as well.

You, "Kbmdale", and "CaptiveReef", at least, seem to be on the same page here, and maybe we can now get into the "functionalities" of these "zones", without getting lost in misunderstood terminology.

So, again, what is the Anaerobic ( VS Anoxic ) activities, that we are wanting to preserve, in a "wasting plenum"?

Sorry about the "long-windedness" here, but I really do want to keep this thread "educational", if not "very much more".

Thanks again, voodoody! > barryhc

[Obi-dad]

I am trying a different version of this, using the cpvc piping but with an SSB instead of a DSB. I have a DSB in my fuge, and like the looks of a sandbed, but don't want to accumulate crap in the sandbed (pun intended). So I have this drain system to hopefully remove some of the crap periodically. I don't have to worry about the anaerobic layer, because I don't have one to being with. The tank has only been up for 6 months, so hasn't really accumulated much stuff in the sand. My nitrates and phosphates are not measurable, and I don't have an algae problem (but I have a lot of chaeto in the fuge that grows quickly).

I'm not sure what frequency/qty I will drain yet. I have a few layers of weed preventer plastic around the pipes, and use Southdown sand, so I may not get the flow necessary, and it may still channel, but my only purpose is to flush water through, not to try and maintain an anaerobic layer, so it should be easier than the ones trying this with DSBs. Even if it doesn't work at all it was cheap to try, and shouldn't hurt anything.

[barryhc]

Originally posted by DougSupreme
It is a Perfecto 120G 5'L x 18"W

I have no idea how many holes, I suppose I could figure the number, I seem to remember that the holes were 3" apart. I simply wrapped the piping in landscape tarp( the fabric kind) and poured the southdown on top of that to a depth of about 4.5"


I have had the system up and running for over year. Unfortunately, I haven't really been recording any results up to this point, and my tank is scheduled to be torn down for a move in the next two weeks. When we move to the new house, I plan on setting the tank back up, so I should be able to record results .

Doug, "we" have a really great opportunity here, to see what happens during a "teardown" for one thing, and I wish you the best during the move.

You should have noted, that I am very concerned about "fabric", or anything, that even "vaguely" represents a "membrane".

Keep us with us here, in preperation for your "reinstallation".

Thanks > barryhc

[barryhc]

Originally posted by "Umm, fish?"
Nice to be back . I had to run off and be sick with my child and then have a birthday . Sucks getting old.

But it's great getting to be at birthdays and love your child!

Originally posted by "Umm, fish?"
I am still in the "Low Frequency" category. I just think DSBs do what they do very, very well for a certain length of time. So, I just can't see screwing around with anything on a regular basis. Depending on what I find when I start sucking out of the bottom of the bed, I may pull about an inch off the bottom of the tank every 6 months or so and see how it goes.

Sand beds might be able to do what they do "even better".

The 1" every 6 mos. does not sound the least bit severe, or "problematic".

Originally posted by "Umm, fish?"
I have a theory, though. Tell me what you think. I think that no matter how we try we are going to get some channeling in our wasting..

I agree, but I have been doing what I can to reduce this "channeling" to a "practical" level.

Originally posted by "Umm, fish?"
Further, I think that the anaerobic bacteria in these areas will survive our draws with no problems (since the water is channeling around them). And I think that these bacteria will very quickly re-colonate the rest of the SB after the draw, thus mitigating the parameter spikes that might occur.

That would be true, "if ", the "channeling" was that "severe", and, I am counting on exactly that perception to be true, in the "upper layer" of "my" ( or "the" ) "High Frequency" version.

I am also counting on something different to occur, in the "lower level" that I have described as the "substrate model" for "High Frequency" wasting.

You see, we can all be winners here.

Originally posted by "Umm, fish?"
I guess I'd better get experimenting.

I think so, and myself as well. I think "voodoody" is about ready as well.

You might be onto something, "Fish"!

That's what I think, and thanks again > barryhc

[barryhc]

Originally posted by Obi-dad
I am trying a different version of this, using the cpvc piping but with an SSB instead of a DSB. I have a DSB in my fuge, and like the looks of a sandbed, but don't want to accumulate crap in the sandbed (pun intended). So I have this drain system to hopefully remove some of the crap periodically. I don't have to worry about the anaerobic layer, because I don't have one to being with. The tank has only been up for 6 months, so hasn't really accumulated much stuff in the sand. My nitrates and phosphates are not measurable, and I don't have an algae problem (but I have a lot of chaeto in the fuge that grows quickly).

I'm not sure what frequency/qty I will drain yet. I have a few layers of weed preventer plastic around the pipes, and use Southdown sand, so I may not get the flow necessary, and it may still channel, but my only purpose is to flush water through, not to try and maintain an anaerobic layer, so it should be easier than the ones trying this with DSBs. Even if it doesn't work at all it was cheap to try, and shouldn't hurt anything.

For your intended purpose, as you state it here, I think that your reasoning is fairly "sound", however, I will continue to state, that whatever the purpose, anything like a "membrane" will "clog", and "channel", so if you want to avoid "clogging", I have recommended a "model" that will not suffer from this.

Thanks for posting Obi-Dad, barryhc

[wrasselover]

Interesting rehash of an old thread. About a year ago I contacted Hawke privately and got a response. He eventually stopped using his plenum system and went bare bottom. He said he reached a very simple conclusion. A plenum system could be made to work, but why treat waste in the tank, and be at risk of a biological over load and upset, when it is easier to design a system to remove the waste to start, and eliminate the major biological load that it causes.

I think he asked me something like....would you build a compost toilet in your house when it is cheaper and easier to flush a standard toilet. ?