# Water flow in the planted aquarium?



## Steve Smith

Hey all.  I've noticed that over filtering, and good flow of water around a planted aquarium seems to be mentioned a bit in some of the posts I've been reading of late.  I just wondered what is best.  Is it just high water turn over, or is it specifically good flow around stems/substrate level that helps?

Whats the basic science behind it?

On that note, I am due to setup a second external filter, doubling the turnover of water in my 180 litre tank.  I wondered what positioning works best?  Opposite ends, same ends, spray bars/single outlet?

Thanks in advance 

Steve.


----------



## Ed Seeley

Well I think a general consensus here seems to be to aim for about 10 times the tank volume per hour, but higher seems better than lower if in doubt as filters never run at their stated flow rates.  The idea is that high flows ensure CO2 especially, but all other nutrients too, are quickly and evenly distributed around the tank.  It also helps to ensure that detritus is kept in suspension longer and swept into filters keeping that potential source of organics away from the tank where it could trigger algae.  Higher flow rates also usually go hand in hand with more filter media too, again reducing mini-ammonia spikes.

As to the form of that flow I don't personally think it matters too much, but it must be flowing all around the tank to ensure no plants go without and detritus doesn't collect.  Some use spray bars, some lily pipes and I have a Hydor flow pump to boost circulation.  Personally I like this method as I already have sufficient, high surface area media (Sintered glass) IMO in my filter and I can then turn the pump off at night when the CO2 is off and give the fish a rest.  After all the fish I am keeping aren't from rapids!  Or even quickly flowing streams.


----------



## ceg4048

Hi,
     I agree with Ed. There are two issues. Nutrient delivery and High surface are media for bacterial colonies. Check page 6 of this thread for some gory details: viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1011&start=50

Cheers,


----------



## Steve Smith

An interesting read indeed.  I'm now considering the sintered glass media, though I bought a large bag of bio balls last night, so might stick with those.  I think I am going to fill one half of the new filter (Fluval 204) with the bio balls, increasing my bio filtering quite a lot.  The other half is designed to take mechanical sponges so I'll stick with those.  I think I'll also increase the bio filtering in my current filter.

As for positioning of the outlets, I think I'm going to switch to using a single outlet instead of spray bars, and position them to give reasonable flow in slightly differing directions, and possibly slightly differing heights if possible, towards the two inlets on the opposite side of the tank, also at different heights.

Thanks for the info guys


----------



## Lisa_Perry75

Just sent it today    I protected it with bubble wrap and a sheet of filter floss as you didn't have any media. Cost Â£8.25 to post it! 2.7kg hehe.


----------



## Rob33

DevUK said:
			
		

> As for positioning of the outlets, I think I'm going to switch to using a single outlet instead of spray bars, and position them to give reasonable flow in slightly differing directions, and possibly slightly differing heights if possible, towards the two inlets on the opposite side of the tank, also at different heights.



How about having a spray bar mounted vertically?  Anyone tried this?


----------



## Ed Seeley

Rob33 said:
			
		

> DevUK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for positioning of the outlets, I think I'm going to switch to using a single outlet instead of spray bars, and position them to give reasonable flow in slightly differing directions, and possibly slightly differing heights if possible, towards the two inlets on the opposite side of the tank, also at different heights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about having a spray bar mounted vertically?  Anyone tried this?
Click to expand...


I don't know but the problem I see with spray bars (though I know Clive uses them) is to think about a water spray you use on a hose pipe.  I have one with nozzles that can be changed.  When I use the rose (my spray bar analogy with lots of small hoses) the flow feels less intense whereas when is use the single soaker attachment it pushes things around.  I see the same kind of effect in my tanks, so I like to use the open end return rather than a spray bar.  Please note this is an advantage, I feel, in mainly keeping debris suspended; I'm not sure it will make a difference to CO2 or nutrient distribution.

Clive had tried out a number of different ways of mounting spray bars for best effect I think.


----------



## Rob33

Yes, I see your point.


----------



## ceg4048

Hi,
Smaller tanks can use a variety of ways to move the water since the distances are not very large and so there's less loss of momentum. The larger the tank the more difficult it is to keep from getting stagnant areas, especially if the tank is tall. The flow simply peters out and cannot carry CO2/nutrients to the deeper recesses of the tank. In such tanks you get areas that have excellent flow and the plants in those areas do well. Other areas suffer starvation and the plants mysteriously disintegrate or just do poorly. This is particularly true for carpet plants which have the worst of all worlds:
1. They are closest to where decaying detritus settles and where pockets of ammonia develop, with a greater likelihood of producing algae due to a higher ammonia loading rate.
2. Flow rate is lowest here and CO2 tends to rise away from them.

In deep tanks therefore the idea is to force flow downwards against the front glass to ensure maximum contact time. When combined with an external inline diffuser, CO2 enriched effluent is poured down over the carpet plants if the spray bar is mounted against the back wall. Since you want maximum coverage along the length of the tank, mounting the spray bars vertically is counterproductive since this causes a narrow sliver of flow. I've found that if the carpet plants are fed in this manner all the rest of the plants are automatically fed as the the flow is deflected towards the rear and then up along the aft wall. This method allow the water to penetrate even to the floor of the back wall.

In many tanks, tall growing stems have a tendency to lose their lower leaves and it has been assumed that the reason for this is that these lower leaves have less light. I'm beginning to believe that this is only partially true as many of my plants don't lose the lower leaves at all. If these leaves have sufficient contact time with CO2 laden water they can still photosynthesize as would low light plants. Many of my plants retain their lower leaves, even in the shadows. The key, I believe is due to better CO2 and nutrient distribution facilitated by the hydrodynamics of properly mounted spraybars.

The first image below shows the lower half of a 12 inch stem. Peering deep into the shadow area you can see that that this "so-called" high light plant (P. Stelleta) still retains the lower leaves. There is even pearling on the lower side of the leaf surface as the CO2 laden water flows in an upward direction. I never saw this behavior when using lily type pipes, which only send strong flow longitudinally. The second image shows the upper half of this plant (left side of that frame). Compare the relative levels of light from left-top to left-bottom of the frame (note that the first image looks bright only because of the camera's exposure settings.) You can see that although the lower leaves are smaller they do grow and do not shed. In fact, all along the bottom of that image you can see the amount of shading but these plants have no difficulty growing. I attribute this in large part to the spraybar configuration. Again, note that I'm only talking about large tanks. Ed's analysis is for smaller volumes.









In this shot you can see C. wendetii on the right which I prune often, except I pull the lower leaves. The lower leaves on this plant grow out from the shadow area smothering the carpet plants. You can just make out on the bottom of the frame that the P. helferi has little difficult propagating even into the darker areas. Force feeding CO2 via the bars makes this all possible. Now if I could only find some spray bars that do not have EHEIM written all over them. 




Cheers,


----------



## Steve Smith

Wow, great info Ceg   So do you have just one spray bar, or 2?  Would be interested to see how it looks.

I guess one of the issues might be if I were to rig up an inline reactor (as I hope to do) the CO2 would only be comming from one spray bar.  Do you mount it as close to the middle as possible?


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Steve,
Here is a photo of a sample installation. You might just be able to make out the back glass. There are actually 3 spraybars. Two of them are ganged together on the left side with an inch long piece of tubing. I was too cheap to buy a 4th for the right side. Remember this is a 6 footer. This is not a very sophisticated installation at all. They are just mounted on the back with suckers and just joined to the filter outlet tube. I don't even use the shepherds crook, no need and better flexibility. Now, Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble would have done it this way so I'm not particularly proud of it's lack of modern aesthetic appeal but it works. The holes in the bars point straight out - horizontal towards the front, maybe even slightly upwards. I previously had HC in the foreground which used to just decay when I used the £40 lily pipes. Subsequently, after spraybar installation, huge mats of it would detach from the substrate due to the buoyancy from pearling, which actually became annoying.




This shot shows the bars more closely and shows the orientation of the holes. I found a much better behaved ground cover plant (P. helferi) and it also benefits from this simple configuration.




I use two inline diffusers and two filters, one is a Cal Aqua and the other an AM1000. Ideally, mount the spraybar centrally but you can do as I did and join two bars together. This gives you better coverage and lowers the exit velocity at each hole because there are more holes. On my setup there are a few gaps, like at the two far ends of course and a foot or so in the middle. No big deal.

Remember, if they look too ugly you can mount them way up at the waterline so that you hardly notice them. Of course, real aquascapers would never even consider such a cheesy setup, but hey, it works. Just you try growing a 6 foot mat of HC 2 feet underwater. _Not even remotely easy_.  This give you the best chance. Anyway, I've completed a self hypnosis course and now I tell myself "what spraybars?" 

Cheers,


----------



## GreenNeedle

P@H sell plain transparent Fluval spray bars for external and internal filters.  no branding on them.

Andy


----------



## ceg4048

Great tip Andy! Thanks for that. I'm off to P@H!

Cheers,


----------



## beeky

Do B&Q and the like sell 12mm and 16mm tubing for general purpose plumbing use? Eheim and Fluval seem to charge an awful lot for bits of plastic tube.


----------



## ulster exile

Eheim do grey "installation sets" which aren't branded and in my humble opinion look more stylish than the green.  Charterhouse aquatics (online) stock them afaik.

I have a 2026 (c950 lph flowrate) on my 215Litre(ish) tank with the spraybar extended to nearly half of the tank's width.  I have positioned the CO2 diffuser under the spraybar and I do see a nice stream of bubbles rising from the diffuser, reaching to near the surface and then being pushed back down and to the front of the tank in a circular motion.  

My only concern is that currently the bulk of my plant mass is on the side on which the diffuser/spraybar sits so the bulk of the plants are well served (imo!), but the other side of the tank isn't as well served by this arrangement.  Would it be better to extend the spraybar further and accept a reduced flow from the spraybar overall or leave as it is, do you think ,as I will probably end up putting in more plants on the less well served side?


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Chrisi,
Just to be clear, the flow rate does not change by adding an additional bar. The exit velocity at each hole decreases but there are more holes so that the total flow rate is held more or less constant. I have seen a better overall distribution by extending the bars across the entire width. This same circular flow you describe will occur along the long axis of the tank so I reckon that's a good thing. There are a couple of issues to consider though which may either improve or curtail the effectiveness.

Strong velocity from only a single bar does help to push the CO2 down the front. The higher kinetic energy of the effluent improves contact time of this water in the deeper region. You may notice that the tiny CO2 bubbles are like salmon swimming upstream as they rise. The longer they are submerged the better. Once you extend the spraybars effective length and thus lower the exit velocity from each hole though, there is a lower kinetic energy so contact time at lower depths may be less. The bubbles may rise and escape faster.

A single diffuser on larger tanks will always result in an uneven distribution so you would have to experiment to find the best placement. Two diffusers would be better. Still better would be to switch to an external diffuser. That way the entire length of spraybar is filled with CO2 laden water and the distribution is more even at each of the the exit holes. The little Cal Aqua glass inline diffuser, although obnoxiously expensive, does a really good job in my opinion. A combination of the Cal Aqua and an extra spray bar would give pretty good coverage. If you don't want to go the external route then perhaps just tweaking the injection rate bit more would be the next best thing.

I did finally get rid of the Eheim bars in favor of two sets of Fluval smoke gray bars. A mere 10 quid for 2 feet worth of plastic, so I was really grinding my teeth (I figure it cost Fluval 2 pence to manufacture each kit  ). The diameter is slightly larger than the Eheim bar so it's a bit of a struggle to get the Eheim 16/22 hose over it. A little bit of hot water on the hose does the trick. They look a lot better as they tend to disappear in the background. I'm quite satisfied with that (the Gucci glassware fraternity will be rolling their eyes in disdain about now I imagine  )

Also remember that although your 2026 is rated at 950lph, if it's filled with media and is 2 feet or more below the water line then it's probably delivering only about 500lph or so in real terms.


Beeky, you could probably get the bars from the DIY shops. You'd have to drill your own holes though.

Cheers,


----------



## beeky

Just found this:

http://www.fishfurfeather.com/fff-rigid ... -4185.html

In short, 1m of 16mm grey pipe for 73p. Needs some holes drilling though.....


----------



## Steve Smith

Great info guys 

I'm currently using the tetratec spraybar on my EX700 and the grey Eheim kit on my Fluval 204.  Managed to find them at my LFS for Â£10 for the spraybar, Â£10 for the intake.  While still expensive thats saving about Â£10 on RRP for both!

I want to get an external reactor but don't think I can afford 2.  1 will be stretching it!  I really want to move away from internal ceramic diffusers.


----------



## Ed Seeley

DevUK said:
			
		

> I want to get an external reactor but don't think I can afford 2.  1 will be stretching it!  I really want to move away from internal ceramic diffusers.



DIY it!  It's not as hard as you might think!  I've built one using a gravel cleaner and a few plastic media balls and it worked great or you can use PVC pipe.


----------



## Steve Smith

Ed Seeley said:
			
		

> DIY it!  It's not as hard as you might think!  I've built one using a gravel cleaner and a few plastic media balls and it worked great or you can use PVC pipe.



Its the hose tails that worry me.  I've seen some guides but not really sure if I can get the parts.  I should have a browse around B&Q at the weekend.

Any chance of some pics of your DIY effort?  (might be worth a seperate thread).

Cheers

Steve.


----------



## Ed Seeley

DevUK said:
			
		

> Any chance of some pics of your DIY effort?  (might be worth a seperate thread).



Sure.  I'll paste it across from the forum I originally posted it on.


----------



## ulster exile

Thank you ceg for your most informative reply - I would love an external, but space is an issue tbh.  I do however have 4 glass diffusers (cheapos from fleabay) so I could easily split the CO2 into two tubes and have a diffuser at either side.  I may look at upgrading my filter to increase overall flow rate as well and extend the spraybar to increase distribution of the flow.

Apologies to Dev for spamming his thread, it never even occurred to me as I posted, however I am grateful you started the topic


----------



## Steve Smith

No worries, you're not spamming   I was just interested to see how Ed built it, but thought it might benefit others under its own specific thread (easyier to find )

I'm going to try to get to my local DIY place tonight or tomorrow night and suss out parts.


----------



## Steve Smith

Thought I'd just add a quick question to this post...  See what other people do etc 

Ok, so running the 2 filters with spray bars shooting back to front on the level, I wonder what is the best configuration for the inlet tubes.  Currently I have one in each corner.  I wonder if having both in the same corner (at differing heights perhaps) may draw water accross the length of the tank. 

The problem is that I'd like to have bushy plants in one corner (bacopas etc) and then "fluffy" plants in the other (mayaca). As it is at the moment the mayaca seems to catch a lot of debris.

Any thoughts on this?


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Steve,
                The flow patterns are mostly going to be determined by the outflow velocity. Inflow pipes pull water from every angle in more or less a spherical pattern. As a result the pressure difference and it's flow velocity from any one angle is low. By comparison, the outflow is coming from only one angle, i.e. lily pipe or spraybar so the velocity from this single angle is high. Having inflow pipes together may have some effect but I don't think it will appreciably affect the flow distribution. Any bushy plant, or any plant that has a high density of individual leaves will trap debris. It's an annoyance but that's just life. Fluff the plants frequently to dislodge the debris. In fact, a standard maintenance procedure is to fluff plants regularly to dislodge debris such as detritus and algae spores that have a tendency to settle on the leaf surface.

Cheers,


----------



## beeky

I've found a good technique is to siphon off the debris from the stems so that the stem actually gets sucked up the tube. Obviously the diameter of the tube needs to be big enough and the flow not too strong. Also not a good idea if they've been newly planted! Raising the bucket off the floor (chair is ideal) reduces the flow enough I've found.


----------



## clint24

Hi to all.I have a lily pipe in my 60cm tank & after reading this topic I am thinking about changing my lily pipe for the aquili 21 inch spray(AE sells them).Would this be too long for my 60cm tank & would it better to split my 13mm pipe(with a Y branch) & fit either 2 x 9mm or 2 x 12mm intake pipes.Or do you recommend a different setup.cheers.


----------



## JamesM

About the spray bar - AE state its 21 inches, so it *should* be fine in a 60cm tank. 

Email Richard at AE to see if thats the overall length or just the spray section. Should be ok either way though


----------



## clint24

Will do mate.Cheers


----------



## plantbrain

I've looked at ADA's flow and store front displays etc for some time and modified things to enhance things.
I want good flow, but not plants being blasted around either, same for fish for the most part.

The goal here is to have good low pressure, but high volume flow like we see in natural systems.

Reef folks have long used such powerheads (and they are much cheaper than in the past) these days.
I average about 14 Turnovers per hour for most of the better run tanks I've done.

Generally, the flow from the filter is amplified using the low pressure propeller type powerhead and it blast the CO2 and the filtered water all over, as well as providing good surface movement without breaking the surface.

I new and novel method to add O2 at night without an air stone:

Use a reducing tee off the return pipe and place a check valve to prevent back flow into a small air pump, place the air pump on the reverse cycle of the CO2(or a few minutes in between etc).

This will add lots of air and O2 during the night, keep things clean without adding anything inside the aquarium.
Cost is pretty cheap.

Will allow more fish and reduce the CO2 when you do not need it for plant growth.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## teg1203

plantbrain said:
			
		

> I've looked at ADA's flow and store front displays etc for some time and modified things to enhance things.
> I want good flow, but not plants being blasted around either, same for fish for the most part.
> 
> The goal here is to have good low pressure, but high volume flow like we see in natural systems.
> 
> Reef folks have long used such powerheads (and they are much cheaper than in the past) these days.
> I average about 14 Turnovers per hour for most of the better run tanks I've done.
> 
> Generally, the flow from the filter is amplified using the low pressure propeller type powerhead and it blast the CO2 and the filtered water all over, as well as providing good surface movement without breaking the surface.
> 
> I new and novel method to add O2 at night without an air stone:
> 
> Use a reducing tee off the return pipe and place a check valve to prevent back flow into a small air pump, place the air pump on the reverse cycle of the CO2(or a few minutes in between etc).
> 
> This will add lots of air and O2 during the night, keep things clean without adding anything inside the aquarium.
> Cost is pretty cheap.
> 
> Will allow more fish and reduce the CO2 when you do not need it for plant growth.
> 
> Regards,
> Tom Barr



Would it be possible to utilise the co2 diffuser by swapping from pressurised co2 to air (from a small pump) via a simple tee and check valve and operate "crossover" fashion so when one is off the other is on and vice versa.


----------



## a1Matt

teg1203 said:
			
		

> Would it be possible to utilise the co2 diffuser by swapping from pressurised co2 to air (from a small pump) via a simple tee and check valve and operate "crossover" fashion so when one is off the other is on and vice versa.



Interesting idea Teg, and the same thing sprang to my mind as soon as I read Toms post.  For me though I think it would be simpler just to place a dedicated tee inline for the air pump instead


----------



## rowan1984

In order to spread the flow from a spray bar a litle bit more through out the tank, could I not jsut drill a couple of extra holes. Some firing forwards, some down etc. I know the more holes I have the lower the velocity is but worth a shot?


----------



## ceg4048

Hi,
     While this may seem intuitive, it's actually not worth the shot. The flow pattern created by the series of horizontal jets is circular from back to front, then from front top to front bottom, then from front bottom to rear bottom and then up along the back and then forward again. When you change the hole direction you actually disrupt this pattern as the flow coming straight down is counter to and thus cancels out some of the flow which is on the way up. 

Have you ever entertained your little sibling on a swing in the park? At what point in the swings trajectory is it best to push forward? Well, the answer is when the swing has peaked in the aft direction and is on it's way forward again. In that way the energy of your push is in the same direction as the swing's motion, so that the impulse of the forward push, and the forward momentum of the swing combine to be additive. If you want to _slow_ the swing then you push forward while the swing is on its way to back you, i.e. in the opposite directions so that the two energies are subtractive.

Incoherrent and non-uniform flow causes energy dissipation and is counterproductive. Coherrent, uniform flow is additive, causes less turbulence and achieves better energy delivery. This is one of the basic properties of the condition known as "resonance' and this is why, when an army marches across a bridge, they are instructed to avoid marching in unison because hundreds of feet striking the bridge at the same time can actually cause the bridge to collapse due to the simultaneous and synchronous energy input to the structure. :idea: 

Cheers,


----------



## andyh

Only just found this thread, this is very useful indeed when looking at flow in a tank. Wish i had found it a few weeks ago. Although i am going to make some changes to my tank.


----------



## hazeljane

Very, Very intresting will look at this in more depth thanks* CEG *on this you know your onions.   


Stu.


----------



## bigmatt

Hey all,
Thanks for the fascinating thread.  As a newcomer to planted tanks i've found it really helpful
I'm redoing my 60x30x30 into a (hopefully) beautiful planted tank, but with a 2yr old at home i'm doing it on the cheap!  Having found some cheap clear tubing on eBay 
(http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/12mm-x-2mm-Clear- ... 45f182f7d4)
I was going to have a pop at maufacturing my own spray bar and shepherds crook filter intake to aim for that "invisible" look.  Following the advice i've read on here my plan is to drill a large number of fairly large diameter holes on one side of the spray bar to achieve the "high turnover/low flow" effect that i think i should be aiming for (please tell me if i'm wrong...!) on my eheim 2234 filter (stated turnover 1000lpm - should be knocking on for 20x turnover if at full belt, but will likely achieve 10x once flow reduction is taken into account).  The spray bar will then run as close to full width of the tank as possible sat just below the water line directing flow directly at the front of the tank, with the filter intake then tucked in a corner behind a clump of cabomba.  
Does this make sense?  Or have i got the wrong end of the stick entirely....??!?!?!?!?!?
Many thanks
Matt


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Matt,
           Yes this is the basically the right idea. You might find it easier though to first experiment with different hole sizes, spacing and tube diameter using cheap PVC tubing first, and then after you settle on a design that works implement it on the clear acrylic. Of course you've got a much smaller tank so your margin for error is wide. In general, from a large tank perspective, I'm more interested in high flow because, like a billiard ball or a racquetball, I need the high kinetic energy to be able to bounce the water from wall to wall. In your case you want to avoid too much velocity and you'll get an immediate drop in velocity simply by extending the bar and adding more holes. But if you drop the velocity too low then you might find that as your plants thicken up and grow in, they start blocking flow in a hurry. An open "Savannah" scape is more forgiving but a thick jungle scape saps the water's energy. As your filter matures it slows the flow as well so you could easily find yourself pining for all that flow you gave up. I'd just start with copying of the Fluval/Eheim cross sectional tube diameter and hole pattern and see how that works, then, bit by bit enlarge the holes to suit your taste if the flow is too violent.   

Cheers,


----------



## jcastell

> This is one of the basic properties of the condition known as "resonance' and this is why, when an army marches across a bridge, they are instructed to avoid marching in unison because hundreds of feet striking the bridge at the same time can actually cause the bridge to collapse due to the simultaneous and synchronous energy input to the structure.



Resonance is to do with harmonics, and therefore not pertinent to the discussion. The incident in question occurred in 1850 when French soldiers crossed a bridge and their uniformed periodic stamping created the resonance that destroyed the bridge, it required a certain frequency and as unfortunate luck would have it, their marching happened to be in the "range". If the bridge was damped differently this would probably not have happened, by why take the risk?

You are seeing a uniform flowing stream as a wave - which it is not. Certain wave makers do produce water waves, and if used incorrectly we can create standing waves leading to stagnant areas.

If you want to create good water flow in the aquarium just use common sense.


----------



## ceg4048

I think you've misinterpreted my explanation. The concept of resonance is not limited only to harmonics and has much broader applications. If one were to be very technical, the filter's output flow could easily be considered a series of harmonics based on the rotational frequencies and the water pressure pulses each blade of the pump produces. Resonance develops when the frequency of the energy input matches the natural frequency of the system. I was using this concept to develop the idea of being mindful to match flow vectors when combining filter outputs so that the net result is additive and not subtractive. In any case, a stream flows along a linear path where, at any given point in the flow field a unit volume of water does not pass that point more than once. Flow in the tank is non-linear in the sense that it is possible that the unit volume passes a given point multiple times before leaving the tank - where it later returns. This is clearly cyclic and therefore, a harmonic analogy is absolutely appropriate.



			
				jcastell said:
			
		

> ...If you want to create good water flow in the aquarium just use common sense.


Yes, but how is this helpful, and what does this actually mean in practical terms? Clearly, common sense is to perceive flow in the tank in the same way as that in a washing machine which results is collision of streams, wasted energy, stagnation areas and so forth. In this case, it may be more fruitful if common sense is abandoned in favour of the less common analogy associated with harmonics.

Cheers,


----------



## jcastell

> If one were to be very technical, the filter's output flow could easily be considered a series of harmonics based on the rotational frequencies and the water pressure pulses each blade of the pump produces



in practical terms we don't even need to go there, viewing it as a uniform flow is much more appropriate. I don't think we should even be thinking of the flow as waves, more like uniform particles coming out. You are talking about super positioning and cancellation effects of waves, not required for our objectives. The scale of effect is way too small to be even appreciable, and with newer pumps (not on commercial canisters mind) that operate at much higher rpms this effects is basically nil and can be treated as totally linear.



> Flow in the tank is non-linear in the sense that it is possible that the unit volume passes a given point multiple times before leaving the tank - where it later returns. This is clearly cyclic and therefore, a harmonic analogy is absolutely appropriate.



I'm more concerned about the fluid dynamical effects that are happening than anything to do with harmonics or resonance. The question one should ask is the obvious, if there was such a point where the flow goes around itself is it localising the water or is it a, how shall I say, temporary holding area where the water gets moved on anyway. If it is the latter, we wouldn't care (well maybe the fish would care!), if the former then that would imply that whatever gets trapped gets localised and hence will never move from there creating a "holding area".

I've looked at Amano's tanks and he does nothing fancy - he doesn't need to. There's nothing fancy in this apart from using common sense. But there is a fine dividing line between having good flow around the tank to create a constant spring cleaning effect or blasting the hell out of everything.

If your objective is to make sure that the water is being mixed well to give immediate dilution effect then relatively low flow can achieve this as long as you strategically place the outputs right (and this requires experimenting). If we are talking about creating enough flow so that detritus gets swept into the currents and ends up getting sucked up in inlets of the canister filter then that is a different proposition altogether.


----------



## ceg4048

Well I don't think that we're suggesting anything fancy. All we're saying is to avoid incoherent and disruptive flow.
I can't address Amano's tanks because I don't know all the things that he and his team does and I don't know what problems arise or how they are solved. We do know what happens in our tanks though because we see the difficulties every day and we are aware of what techniques work and which are less effective. As tanks become larger the effects become more pronounced. As lighting becomes higher the penalties of poor flow, i.e poor nutrition and algae, also become even more pronounced.

As I mentioned, we're not necessarily dealing with resonance itself, but with the similar mechanism by which external forces, such as pump outputs, combine to either be destructive or constructive.


			
				jcastell said:
			
		

> ...But there is a fine dividing line between having good flow around the tank to create a constant spring cleaning effect or blasting the hell out of everything.


No, it's not. Not only is the line not fine but it's enormously thick. First of all, we're not talking about simple spring cleaning. What we're trying to achieve is maximum contact between the leaves and CO2. Highly lit, gas injected tanks are notorious for their inability to keep CO2 in solution long enough to satisfy the requirements of many plants. Aquatic plants have a difficult time transporting this gas across the external cell membranes. Adequate flow reduces the thickness of the boundary layer allowing better absorption of the gas. The same goes for nutrient uptake where stagnant areas in the immediate vicinity of the leaf causes a localized depletion of the nutrient concentration. Under high lighting these issues become critical and result in deficiencies. High flow also helps to carry away the metabolic waste products ejected from the plant. Of course, if the flow is too high then this becomes counter productive and that's why we use the visual analogue of "leaves gently rocking in the wind". As plant mass increases there is much more blocking of flow so what may seem to be excessive when the tank is first planted soon becomes sub-par.

T. Barr has reported that sample measurements taken of Amano tanks reveal that the PAR values are actually low - much lower than most of our tanks. The Amano scapes are also often very open savannah type scapes and are always meticulously cleaned and groomed. This could easily explain why those tanks are not penalized due to lower flow rates.



			
				jcastell said:
			
		

> If your objective is to make sure that the water is being mixed well to give immediate dilution effect then relatively low flow can achieve this as long as you strategically place the outputs right (and this requires experimenting).


Yes, we know that. As stated in the preceding posts, we've found that the best strategy will normally be to avoid collision of flow streams by ensuring uniform flow direction combined with a high pump rating more or less consistent with the 10X rule.

Cheers,


----------



## jcastell

my problem with wanting well mixed flows is that most canister filters don't accommodate it according to their usage literature. And Eheim 2217 is said to be used for tanks up to 600 litres!! With our ways of thinking this is way too optimistic.

I've looked at Amano's filters, he uses a very strong pump that has a much higher head than Eheim or any other manufacturer uses, this means as the filter clogs it doesn't lose that much flow rate.

What I'm trying to get at is that flow rate for it's own sake can be achieved with loads of in tank flow pumps that do nothing but encourage water flow. But where does that leave the canister filters used. For the sake of argument you could have just one Eheim 2217 and loads of flow pumps in the aquarium to achieve your objective, but that would not be the way I would want to go about things.

In the interests of this thread please answer the following:

1) Is the biological load just as much a function of the plants kept as it is of the fish in the aquarium too? Dead plants produce ammonia, so you want it dealt with biologically, having good mixing will allow for the dilution effect but this also needs to be backed up with sufficient biological filtration and sufficient contact time with the biological filtration. In the other thread mentioning about canister filters you said the throughput was a problem. I stated it was not, but another thought also occurred to me: it makes no sense to have a 2217 canister pumping 2000 litres per hour or more because the contact time with the biological colony is decreased. The larger the canister the higher the flow rate we can put through it, and Amano seems to use quite conservative flow rates for his canister filters given their size and it strikes me that he wants to increase contact time with the biological colony when the water gets through it.

2) what happens to the detritus that sinks and ends up in the gravel? Do we still have to clean it out or will it rot and break down of its own accord? Apart from going to extremes we are always going to get some that will end up in the gravel (depends on fish loads of course!). Is this one of the reasons why people get blue green algae in the front glass since it's been triggered by this?


----------



## ceg4048

jcastell said:
			
		

> my problem with wanting well mixed flows is that most canister filters don't accommodate it according to their usage literature. And Eheim 2217 is said to be used for tanks up to 600 litres!! With our ways of thinking this is way too optimistic.


Yes, Eheim are known for their optimistic flow ratings. In non-planted, low stocking level tanks this doesn't matter, especially when using high surface area media such as their generally overpriced sintered glass media (or competitors equivalent.) While detritus does build up, Eheim and others assume this will be taken care of via water change. As these generic tanks are also typically low light there is much more margin for error. Manufacturer's tank capacity filter ratings are therefore based solely on the ammonia pull-down ability to levels which would show zero on a consistent basis on an ammonia test kit (assuming a fully cycled tank).



			
				jcastell said:
			
		

> I've looked at Amano's filters, he uses a very strong pump that has a much higher head than Eheim or any other manufacturer uses, this means as the filter clogs it doesn't lose that much flow rate.
> 
> What I'm trying to get at is that flow rate for it's own sake can be achieved with loads of in tank flow pumps that do nothing but encourage water flow. But where does that leave the canister filters used. For the sake of argument you could have just one Eheim 2217 and loads of flow pumps in the aquarium to achieve your objective, but that would not be the way I would want to go about things.


Yes, many folks find that simply adding Koralias or other pumps will add flow and this, if distributed correctly will definitely achieve the objective of addressing the boundary layer issues, enabling better penetration of nutrients/CO2. 

Filtration and Flow/Distribution are separate entities. Flow is as important as Filtration because it feeds the plants, so there is 
value in adding more pumping, but there is an aesthetic penalty. After all, the fashionable trend is to remove equipment from the tank for a more natural look. Using a filter(s) that satisfy/exceed the 10X rule kills two birds with one stone and satisfies the aesthetic imperative.



			
				jcastell said:
			
		

> In the interests of this thread please answer the following:
> 
> 1) Is the biological load just as much a function of the plants kept as it is of the fish in the aquarium too? Dead plants produce ammonia, so you want it dealt with biologically, having good mixing will allow for the dilution effect but this also needs to be backed up with sufficient biological filtration and sufficient contact time with the biological filtration. In the other thread mentioning about canister filters you said the throughput was a problem. I stated it was not, but another thought also occurred to me: it makes no sense to have a 2217 canister pumping 2000 litres per hour or more because the contact time with the biological colony is decreased. The larger the canister the higher the flow rate we can put through it, and Amano seems to use quite conservative flow rates for his canister filters given their size and it strikes me that he wants to increase contact time with the biological colony when the water gets through it.


Plants add to the bio-load, not just because of dead leaves, but because of the high metabolic rate induced by the high lighting and massive carbon (and other nutrient) consumption. This results in ejection of carbohydrates, lipids and proteins which incidentally, feeds the critters in the bio-film/filter. I'm guessing that this actually speeds the metabolic rate of the microbes which affects the ammonia production rate and levels. But there is plenty of space on the bio-media and the oxygenation which occurs as a direct result of plant photosynthesis also finds it's way to these critters thereby enhancing their populations. As long as there is plenty of bio-media and microbial population one need not worry too much about contact time of the water with an individual bacterium. This has never been an issue with high throughput filtration.



			
				jcastell said:
			
		

> 2) what happens to the detritus that sinks and ends up in the gravel? Do we still have to clean it out or will it rot and break down of its own accord? Apart from going to extremes we are always going to get some that will end up in the gravel (depends on fish loads of course!). Is this one of the reasons why people get blue green algae in the front glass since it's been triggered by this?


Detritus not picked up by the filter rots in the sediment. The combination of this rotting and any external lighting does contrbute to the BGA seen at the sediment line. Running a length of black electrical tape along this line will cut the light and reduce the amount of BGA formation. Good flow distribution to the bottom also minimizes this problem.

The rotting is also precisely why it's not a good idea, in a high light tank, to disturb the sediment without then doing a water change to dilute the ammonia that has been kicked up. The result is often algal blooms. Those with a fully carpeted bottoms have little choice though, except when changing out carpet sections or re-scaping. This isn't too big of a deal as the ammonia in the sediment feeds the carpet plant roots.

Cheers,


----------



## plantbrain

Let me stick a hot pepper in the mix.

What does a large water change do?

Think about it in terms of gas space, aerenchyma, and how much that can hold as far as O2/Co2, current, boundary layers etc.

If you did a large water change, say 7x a week, say after 1-2 hours after the lights came on, what might this do to the current/plant growth (if practical obviously)?

What about a good sized wave timer system?

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## jcastell

this is just a guess since I'm an amateur, and you'll have to excuse me since I'm not a chemist so I'll have to make educated guesses and assumptions, which I'll gladly have corrected:

well a large water change will take out spores and drop the ammonia levels as stated, but is would also reset the nutrient levels, and I take it because of this there'll be more gas space since nutrients have taken it up as they don't do now? So O2 and CO2 are easier to inject after the water change? (Of course this depends on what kind of water you are changing it with and the assumptions about it!)

Would the plants get a little boost in CO2 uptake after a water change, I always notice pearling after a water change.

But you either have to be a complete masochist or have a very elaborate plumbing arrangement to be doing a water change every day!!

I can't see a good sized wave timer doing much on its own apart from encouraging more uniform mixing.

Out of interest Tom, what is the average size of an algae spore? Is it possible to remove them with a 50 micro mesh filter?


----------



## Norfolk180Rio

Ceg, any problems with back flow of water towards the CO2 cylinder when the CO2 is off during the night when using the cal aqua inline diffuser? I know you can put a valve in but this would be effective enough when having 1200 or so liters of water passing through per hr?


----------



## ceg4048

Hi,
   It doesn't matter how many litres. It only matters what the relative pressures are. The pressures are a function of the relative distances from the water level of the tank. When you turn the gas off water will backflow down through the diffuser so you need a check valve to stop it. No big deal.

Cheers,


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,
This is a good thread. 





> Adequate flow reduces the thickness of the boundary layer allowing better absorption of the gas. The same goes for nutrient uptake where stagnant areas in the immediate vicinity of the cause a localized depletion of the nutrient concentration.


 & 





> Plants add to the bio-load, not just because of dead leaves, but because of the high metabolic rate induced by the high lighting and massive carbon (and other nutrient) consumption. This results in ejection of carbohydrates, lipids and proteins which incidentally, feeds the critters in the bio-film/filter. I'm guessing that this actually speeds the metabolic rate of the microbes which affects the ammonia production rate and levels. But there is plenty of space on the bio-media and the oxygenation which occurs as a direct result of plant photosynthesis also finds it's way to these critters thereby enhancing their populations. As long as there is plenty of bio-media and microbial population one need not worry too much about contact time of the water with an individual bacterium. This has never been an issue with high throughput filtration.


I've spent quite a long time playing about with these as part of my "day job". The important factors are the ones quoted above,  *that flow speed is the factor that regulates gas uptake*, this applies to the gas exchange at the water surface as well. This is a "corals" link, but it gives some details http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2007/1/aafeature/
and  the other factor is, *oxygen levels in the biological filtration media often limit nitrification*, this is one that is very relevant to those who keep fish with high oxygen demand (or have lots of CO2 because of the Bohr effect), particularly if they don't have plants in their systems, so the aquaculture industry as well as Plec and Hill-stream loach keepers. Nearly all the problems with biological filtration arise because  the potential BOD exceeds the oxygen content of the system, rather than there being insufficient bacteria or sites for biofiltration.

I was asked to write on "aeration and oxygenation" for a plec keeping forum, the article is hosted at "Plecoplanet" at the moment, although I'm not sure you can access without being a member.  http://plecoplanet.com/?page_id=829. 

cheers Darrel


----------



## Harkle420

what a awesome thread!! Have spend about a hour reading this!!! I have a 180 litre tank which i run just one fuval external and a eheim 2217, but i do not run the eheim, because it is loud! it needs a clean!! i am so cleaning it tomorrow! i was a bit worried blowing off all my co2 with to much surface movement!! but after reading this just going to put the output at half height!! any hints???!!!!


----------



## ceg4048

dw1305 said:
			
		

> I was asked to write on "aeration and oxygenation" for a plec keeping forum, the article is hosted at "Plecoplanet" at the moment, although I'm not sure you can access without being a member. http://plecoplanet.com/?page_id=829.


 Yes! it lets you in even as a non-member (don't tell the Mods!  ) Nice article Darrel. Excellent data for any fish and any tank, really.



			
				Harkle420 said:
			
		

> i was a bit worried blowing off all my co2 with to much surface movement!! but after reading this just going to put the output at half height!! any hints?


Actually, as long as you don't break the surface (i.e. no white water, foaming or bubbles) then you're OK. Try placing the output just below the surface.

Cheers,


----------



## Harkle420

just clean my spinning thing, sorry can not spell improperrr, i am a idoit i mean dyslxia!! you know what i mean!! lol lo   l!! put my outlet just below surface is working a treat!! Leaves blowing in the wind + all my plants are pearling!! lol
so sorry spelling on this and all my post!!


----------



## richard124

Great tank cig


----------



## plantbrain

dw1305 said:
			
		

> Hi all,
> This is a good thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adequate flow reduces the thickness of the boundary layer allowing better absorption of the gas. The same goes for nutrient uptake where stagnant areas in the immediate vicinity of the cause a localized depletion of the nutrient concentration.
> 
> 
> 
> &
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plants add to the bio-load, not just because of dead leaves, but because of the high metabolic rate induced by the high lighting and massive carbon (and other nutrient) consumption. This results in ejection of carbohydrates, lipids and proteins which incidentally, feeds the critters in the bio-film/filter. I'm guessing that this actually speeds the metabolic rate of the microbes which affects the ammonia production rate and levels. But there is plenty of space on the bio-media and the oxygenation which occurs as a direct result of plant photosynthesis also finds it's way to these critters thereby enhancing their populations. As long as there is plenty of bio-media and microbial population one need not worry too much about contact time of the water with an individual bacterium. This has never been an issue with high throughput filtration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've spent quite a long time playing about with these as part of my "day job". The important factors are the ones quoted above,  *that flow speed is the factor that regulates gas uptake*, this applies to the gas exchange at the water surface as well. This is a "corals" link, but it gives some details http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2007/1/aafeature/
> and  the other factor is, *oxygen levels in the biological filtration media often limit nitrification*, this is one that is very relevant to those who keep fish with high oxygen demand (or have lots of CO2 because of the Bohr effect), particularly if they don't have plants in their systems, so the aquaculture industry as well as Plec and Hill-stream loach keepers. Nearly all the problems with biological filtration arise because  the potential BOD exceeds the oxygen content of the system, rather than there being insufficient bacteria or sites for biofiltration.
> 
> I was asked to write on "aeration and oxygenation" for a plec keeping forum, the article is hosted at "Plecoplanet" at the moment, although I'm not sure you can access without being a member.  http://plecoplanet.com/?page_id=829.
> 
> cheers Darrel
Click to expand...


Nice article Darrel, that's a goodie.
Post it here in the stickies, it's more than worthy.

I'm a pleco freak and have had many species, bred quite a few and many of my flow patterns in all my tanks are designed for their needs. Anyone with as many plecos as I have is got the disease.
They ARE definitely more sensitive to cO2 than most species, some are not bad, others are very touchy.

All the plant detirus added a lot to the BOD. And if the plants are hurting........a LOT more so.
Healthy plants contribute about 5-10% of their  fixed carbon to the system as BOD.
A well groomed and pruned tank will have much less BOD and will likely be much healthier over the long term.

This export via water changes seems to be a large factor with the amplified CO2 enrichment methods, whereas with non CO2, the loading is reduced a great deal. That is speculation/a hypothesis though.

I have about 20-30X turnover per hour in all my tanks, and I have switched to wet/dry filters that are sealed to reduce CO2 loss, but still bump the O2 up 1-2ppm typically vs a canister filter over the 24 hour period. I also tend to have 2-4x the typical fish load, sometimes 100% more fish than some planted folk's tanks.

I also like to be able to feed the fish well.

A good method for measuring flow is from the reef side of things:
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2011/7/ ... =clickthru

I want one  
Really, I do.


----------



## dw1305

Hi all,


> I was asked to write on "aeration and oxygenation" for a plec keeping forum, the article is hosted at "Plecoplanet" at the moment, although I'm not sure you can access without being a member. http://plecoplanet.com/?page_id=829.........Nice article Darrel, that's a goodie. Post it here in the stickies, it's more than worthy.



Thanks,  I'm away for a couple of weeks now, but I'll update the links and add it to UKAPS when I get back.

cheers Darrel


----------



## GillesF

My plants are only gently moving at one specific spot in my tank. I assume this is poor circulation?

*edit* and another question: if you're using a spraybar, should it point directly to the front glass or somewhat downwards?


----------



## veryl

Hydor has just put out a wave maker under 100.00 U.S.D. Fits my price range and their new koralia models are at least 3 times better than the old ones. Model 1400 gph is 5.5 watts and smaller models maybe 4 watts, wave maker will
handle 200 watts, this means i could run as many as 40 koralias off the one wave maker. Glad i didn't spend 425.00
on the one i wanted.  Foster and Smith has this unit for $69.00 right now. Going to run a 750 on a 75 gal and a 90
gal tank a 1150 on a 125 and a 1400 is up and running on my 150 gal.
  Having trouble deciding which way to point them, currently have it point down the lenght on 6ft tank.
will give my opion on them in couple weeks as 3 more arrive tomorrow.


----------



## jalexst

Fascinating thread everybody, and great info ceg. Nice One.


----------



## peaches

I hope you dont mind me adding to this thread, but it seems silly to start a new one asking similar questions.  I am in the process of setting up this rather interesting shaped tank that I rescued for the princely sum of £10.



Its not quite finished (as you can see), but the height is almost 3ft, and the footprint 15 inches by 17 inches.  I am planning a bit of emersed growth where possible,  at the moment I have no CO2 and only low lighting 3 x 8 watt T5s, its a bit of an experiment I suppose.  The installation of the Fluval 203 has given me a few headaches.  It was originally going to be an eheim 2213 but I broke it!  

*Getting to the point*, on such a tall tank is a spray bar best for water movement?  I had a spray bar yesterday and the "management" complained about the noise from the water spoiling his TV viewing.
The spray bar was a couple of inches above the water line.  Now I just have a plain open pipe until I decide what to put on the end of it.  If I have a spray bar I would have to have it on or close to the waterline to prevent noise.  However, this will spoil my emersed growth idea as I will need a bit of spray on the leaves of the anubias.

I am still working on the plants and waiting for my long planting tongs to come through the post, hence the poor arrangement of vallis.  No fish yet, going to put some splash tetras and marble hatchets in.  Any filter intake and output suggestions would be welcomed.   thank you!


----------



## peaches

Today I am trialling a fishtail outlet, just on the surface.  I suppose its fairly trial and error.


----------



## darren636

could you not angle the outlet diagonal downwards? That should keep all the water moving.


----------



## peaches

Will have a try, the fishtail will probably bend that way, if not I ve got enough chopped up bits of pipe to build something.


----------



## hudsonpd

Anyone got any advice as to how wide apart the holes in a spray bar should be? And how frequent they should be?

Ceg, with all of your experience, how will this impact the velocity?

My tank is a 1m long and 50cm deep. I have a FX5 filter which I am going to fit a spray bar to.

Will this get the CO2 to the bottom ok and also through the plants to the back? I am a bit concerned I get this wrong either because the velocity reduces too much along the bar or because the tank is too deep for the flow to get the bottom and then to the back,

Ceg, how deep are your tanks?


----------



## ceg4048

Hello,
Velocity is the servant of mass flow rate. The purpose of flow and distribution is to move large masses of water not only to carry away debris, but to bring new water with high concentrations of nutrients and CO2 towards the plant, because the leaves will absorb the nutrients in the surrounding water and will deplete the volume of water within their immediate vicinity. Moving the water brings fresh supplies and reduces the thickness to the stagnant area adjacent to the leaf. You don't need high velocity but you need high mass flow rate because there is a lot of water to move, which is distributed over a wide volume.

The spacing and number of holes in your spraybar is determined by your tubing ID and your length of spraybar. There is no fixed distance or size that you must adhere to, but what you should do is to ensure the the total amount of surface are of your holes combined should be greater than or equal to the cross sectional area of the spraybar ID. So a good place to start is the calculate the area and then pick a number of holes. That means each hole must have a certain size and those holes will be distributed evenly across the length of the spraybar. Of course you make room for fittings and other sundry issues, but that gives you a start. If you calculate a spacing or number orf holes that is an absurd number then reiterate the procedure and re-do the calculations, this time picking a different number of holes or hole size.

Different things can go wrong when you test the bar. It might be that the flow rate from holes at the beginning is different that the flow rate at the end. If the holes are too small they water might be too high a velocity, of the holes too large the jets might not quite reach the front glass. So you have to play with enlarging the holes or modifying the length of the bar. Use a few pieces of PVC with different drilling and hole patterns to get it just where you want it. Also note that you don't have to chock the filter full of media, you can use half as much media, which will improve your flow rate. Some people enlargen the holes if they fell that the velocity is too strong, and this works just as well so don't worry too much. I just show as a general rule of thumb to try and get the jet streams to make it to the front glass, so you do need to experiment a bit but PVC is relatively cheap (in most countries anyway).

My largest tank is around 60 cm deep and I didn't have any difficulty at all when adhering as close to the 10X rule as I could. Make sure that you do not reduce the tubing ID too much with reducers and so forth along the water circuit.


Cheers,


----------



## foxfish

3mm evey 50mm


----------



## martinmjr62

Hi after reading this thread I'm still unsure of what to do about the flow in my tank. I have a jewel rio180 running a Fluval 405. There is a full width double spray bar across the back  pointing slightly up causing a ripple. The plants in the centre are moving but the plants on the right hand side and back right corner se to be stationary. To get the co2 flowing around better I've considered getting a koralis power head. The problem is which size. The flow rate on the Fluval is rated at 1300l/h but the manual says that loaded up its probably around 850-900l/h. So should I get the nano 900 which puts out 900l/h or the bigger 1600. The rule of 10x flow would suggest to get the 900,combined with the Fluval would basically give the required 1800 l/h, or should I get the1600 which would give me around 2500l/h total flow ,possibly too much. 

Any advice please
Thanks
Martin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LancsRick

If it's a single filter, where is your intake? My money would be on the fact that you're setting up a biased flow because you're only drawing water from one location in the tank. Think of the flow as a circuit - everything going ONTO the track has to be able to complete the loop and get OFF the track. That's one of the reasons I like to run two filters on my tanks, it gives you a bit more flexibility when designing your flow.


----------



## martinmjr62

Point taken. But with a limited budget, another filter at the moment is out of reach,so the thought process of a power head was a cheaper option to improve flow so the question was which one would be more suitable


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## foxfish

The problem with power heads & spray bars combination is... where do you point the powerhead?
The idea of a spray bar is to cause a circular motion within the tank, you dont want to interrupt this vortex.
The best option is to increase the flow through the spraybar & make sure it is full length of the tank.


----------



## Ady34

Hi Martin,
yeah ideally you would use a larger flow rate filter through the full length spraybar to get an even flow pattern with enough umph to create a good overall circulation. The problem with adding a single powerhead/circulation pump (as Foxfish said) is where do you position it to get an even flow pattern?....you cant really with a rear panel spraybar.....you could buy 2x 900 lph koralia nano's and place one at either end of the spraybar pointing towards the front panel, but again this will be getting more expensive, but if its within reach financially that will be the best compromise and will give more versatility in the future.
Cheerio,
Ady.


----------



## martinmjr62

Hi Ady, I did think about putting 2 900's either side  of the bar I can an get  2 on eBay for £50. Is that not too much flow though. When do you use them, constantly or only when the Co2's running?
I do have an old Eheim canister filter in the shed. It's a 2213 with a 620 l/h output. Would this be enough flow. And what about introducing another new filter at this stage, would that not mess around with the levels of ammonia/ nitrite. Also been thinking of getting some shrimp and otto's to help with the diatoms algae. I've read that you should get  Caridina Japonica, but I've only heard of people getting Caridna Multidentata (amino). Which ones are more suitable. Still a learning curve


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ady34

martinmjr62 said:
			
		

> Hi Ady, I did think about putting 2 900's either side of the bar I can an get  2 on eBay for £50. Is that not too much flow though. When do you use them, constantly or only when the Co2's running?
> I do have an old Eheim canister filter in the shed. It's a 2213 with a 620 l/h output. Would this be enough flow. And what about introducing another new filter at this stage, would that not mess around with the levels of ammonia/ nitrite. Also been thinking of getting some shrimp and otto's to help with the diatoms algae. I've read that you should get  Caridina Japonica, but I've only heard of people getting Caridna Multidentata (amino). Which ones are more suitable. Still a learning curve
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hi,
well, 2x 900 lph plus the 405 may make the tank like a washing machine    Im not quite sure why the plants in the middle of your tank are swaying but not the ones at the ends. Is the spraybar full length or slightly short? Or is there hardscape in the way preventing good circulation? Maybe its just down to the underpowered fluval as 180 lites really needs somewhere near 1800lph for 10x turnover. I used to only run my koralia when the c02 was on to give good circulation, but i now just leave it on permanently as i use it for surface agitation too.
Personally if you already have another canister filter the simplest and cheapest option for you would be to add that alongside the current 405 filter which will up the overall turnover to somewhere near 10x. Id use another spraybar configuration, you could maybe look at 2 shorter bars (one for each filter, perhaps 2/3 length for the more powerful 405 and 1/3 length for the eheim). This way you wont need to worry about seeding the new filter as you already have a fully mature one running   You also get the benefit of long term of having 2 mature filters (helps when cleaning bio medias), or even running the eheim without any filter media to maximise flowrate to help with your circulation issue.

Amano shrimp are the most efficient algae eaters, and ottos are great also. More info on the set up will help determine what you need to do as generally speaking you can eliminate algae issues with lower light, good c02, frequent large water changes, good dosing regimes and of course good distribution via circulation.... all of these help the plants flourish and then the reduction of algae.

Cheerio,
Ady.


----------



## martinmjr62

Hi Ady, the set up is as follows
Jewel rio 180    1000x 400x400
Fluval 405 with spray bar across the back. Spray bar is 800 long
JBL 2 kg CO2 injection from 11am to 7pm via glass diffuser under the spray bar
Drop checker showing yellowy green when lights on
T5 lighting from 1pm to 9pm
There is a large tree root to the right side which could be slowing the flow down to that corner



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## foxfish

An inline atomiser & an full length spray bar would offer good improved performance


----------



## martinmjr62

Forgot to add water changes are twice a week@ 50%
Dosing macro an micro ferts on alternate days starting Sunday and stopping Friday 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## martinmjr62

Latest news. I've dug out the old Eheim thoroughly cleaned it ,loaded it up and put it on the right hand corner. I've decide to leave the full spray bar running on the Fluval and have fitted a small diffuser to the end to force the water into a smaller outlet to increase the pressure. The outlet is pointing straight into the front right hand corner and the movement of the plants on that side has now greatly increased. Didn't cost anything either which is a bonus and extra filtration must surely be better. Hopefully going to get some amano shrimp and some otto's tomorrow if I get out of work early enough









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## foxfish

I would think that the diffuser you have fitted will dramatically reduce the flow potential, just try it without & see what happens?


----------



## martinmjr62

foxfish said:
			
		

> I would think that the diffuser you have fitted will dramatically reduce the flow potential, just try it without & see what happens?



The flow seems very strong. All the plants to the right are swaying nicely. Without the diffuser it did seem slower. Forcing the water through a smaller outlet increases the pressure. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ceg4048

No it doesn't. Smaller orifices decreases the pressure but increases the velocity. This is fundamental.

Cheers,


----------



## martinmjr62

Ceg, I stand corrected. Does this mean I should run it with or without the diffuser??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ady34

martinmjr62 said:
			
		

> Ceg, I stand corrected. Does this mean I should run it with or without the diffuser??
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'd say it all depends on how it's working in your tank with your hardscape and other circulation. If your happy its creating the flow in the right place I say leave it. Return pipes come in all shapes and sizes aimed at creating different flow patterns suited to different situations. If the 'jet' is getting the flow where you need it then happy days. If its too directional then remove it.
Cheerio
Ady


----------



## geoffbark

martinmjr62

I think what fox and ceg are trying to say is that without the diffuser the volume of water will be greater through the pipe, therefore turning the tank volume over faster and ditributing the nutrients through the water column 

You are nearly correct in thinking that a smaller oriface increases water pressure, what happens is actually the volume of water (Flow) decreases therefore the smaller water volume travels with more force. Test this with the garden hose, the pressure on the garden hose does not increase this is set by your supplier (or booster pump) but when you put your finger over the end reducing flow sending the smaller water volume further


----------



## Clifford

I'm reluctant to appear as a pedant, but what actually happens is an increase in fluid velocity as the cross sectional area of the orifice decreases.

There may be some reduction in flow and pressure, but these will be due to losses from friction e.t.c.

Water is largely incompressible so as the orifice it's travelling through reduces in area the water needs to travel faster to enable the same flow rate to be maintained.


----------



## geoffbark

Clifford said:
			
		

> I'm reluctant to appear as a pedant, but what actually happens is an increase in fluid velocity as the cross sectional area of the orifice decreases.



Correct


----------



## Daz2162

After ready this post and being thoroughly entertained but some of the debates,  ive has a shift round of my hardware. 
Recently i purchased an all pond solutions external filter running at 1000l/ph (so probably 800l/ph) 9w uv steriliser that came with a spray bar that covers just under half the tank length (tank length 60cm),  this is positioned with holes facing straight forward pretty much at waters surface. My co2 diffuser is at the back of the tank as close to the bottom as i could get it with a jbl proflow 400 just above the diffuser that picks up the bubbles and throws it at the front which then disperses them around the tank along with the rest of the nutrients.  The spray bar is agitating the surface quite nicely,  it osnt breaking the water but its moving nicely. 
I also run an airstone at night for about 12 hours to help oxygenate the water column whilst the plants arent producing. 
Cant seem to get any plants pearling though which is a shame,  any ideas how to get them going? Ive got a 60ltr tank, and running 1bps, unfortunately my solenoid is faulty so the co2 is running 24/7, which is why its highly important to run the air stone. 

Cheers 

Darren


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Darren,
Well, frankly, it would be better to not really worry about pearling. Pearling doesn't really mean anything and is in no way an indicator of plant health. Many people chase this idea of pearling and ruin their tank doing so. Just concentrate on getting good flow/distribution,,good nutrition and on keeping the tank and filter immaculately clean.

If you want to understand more about pearling, and why it can be like chasing a red herring, check any or all of the following threads;
Is this a type of algae? | UK Aquatic Plant Society

Plants pearling | UK Aquatic Plant Society

Help I need a scientist! Water changes, pearling and CO2 | UK Aquatic Plant Society

Cheers,


----------



## Daz2162

Hi ceg, 
Yeah thats a fair point mate,  it sounds stupid but id like a visual confirmation that the plants are producing,  guess i should just be letting the fish tell me,  healthy fish oxygenating plants right,  obviously among other things! Now ive moved the hardware around abit to be pointing towards the front glass the distribution is far better than when i had my powerhead side on,  time will tell if its being effective as i only made the change last night. 
My amazon swords have tiny bubbles on the undersides of some of the leaves but i really cant tell if its a build up of tiny co2 bubbles or o2 seeping out. 

Cheers 
Darren


----------



## ceg4048

Well one needs to be aware that when the lights are on Oxygen is being produced. There is no choice. But as explained, whether the gas appears as a bubble or not make no difference. It's entirely possible to have a higher gas production without pearling than with pearling, because the phenomenon itself is a result of many factors.

Cheers,


----------



## Edvet

Ok, i have been reading this and have some questions/remarks. Seeing english isn't my native tongue i might have misunderstood some things.
My filtrationsystem is as follows: the tank has an overflow system, water goes through the filter and is pumped up again towards the tank(via a small overflow).
The 10 times rule: my tank is 400 gallon with app 100 gallon volume in the biological filter. I dont think pushing 4000 gallon per hour wil work . And to add to that my water drops throught two pipes filled with bioballs (in order to aerate the water and have good biological brakedown) which are app. 150cmx10c0x10cm. I tought all the water will loose it's CO2 there. That combined with a large turnover strips a lot of CO2 from the aquarium. I have troubles getting sufficient CO2 in there as it is. (i ordered 2 spiral glass diffusors from Singapore wich worked well in the past, just have to see if they arrive ). I did use a home made diffusor in the past (pvcpipe filled with bioballs at the end of my pump exhaust with CO2 coming in from underside and rising against the flow) wich i will ressurect if the glass ones don't work or don't arrive.
So in order to keep the CO2 in my tank I throttled the pump so i only change some 500 lit/hour. It still goes through the bioballs but the biological filter is largly empty with only some sintered glas pipes (app 10 lit.) in thin layers and some foam. I figure my fish population is so low compared to the volume i dont need large filtering volume, lots of the waste will be broken down in the tank and used through the plants. In order the still have some dispersion in the tank i use a Hydor Koralia circulation pump on and off. I dont use it full time as i always thought and understood surface movement made CO2 escape the tankwater faster, so i try to keep that to a minimum.
After reading the thread  i now  think about buying a second Hydor and leave both on 24/7.
Comments on my thinking please


----------



## foxfish

You will most defiantly loose co2 down the overflow, that is the main disadvantage of having a sump, so your logic is correct in throttling down the flow to the sump.
The simple way to dissolve the gas would be to feed it directly into the return pump, this will however form a mist. You can take it a step further and use a needle wheel pump to return the co2, this will give a very fine mist that lots of people believe to be the most efficient way for the plants to absorb the co2!
I have my internal pumps come on with the gas timer and off with the lights.


----------



## Edvet

Did get me a  second circulation pump today, i have them alternating and on crossing streams, so i know there is plenty agitation in the tank atm. Not sure yet wether i will leave them on during the night (rivers keep flowing at night i think)or put them on the off circuit. CO2 is on 24/7 anyway.


----------



## Cherry

what great threads ! simple question - I have two external filters - a fluval 404 (brilliant apart from the disgusting white attachments) and an aqua something  gives me 10 times turnover(both with spray bars 
plus a two pumps to circulate water /co2
Would I be better to place my CO2 diffuser under one of the inlets and/or get one of those fine diffusers (however I try and place the diffuser at the moment the bubbles seem to get to the top too quickly
Also,and I hadnt thought of this - should i switch off one of the water pumps at night (although some of my fish seem to delight in playing in the flow!


----------



## ceg4048

Hi,
   It's always a better idea to try the cheap solution first. You can place a small diffuser under the inlet of the strongest filter and see how it goes. Do the pH profile checks and see how the gas behaves. If you can't get it to work, or for whatever other reason, such as aesthetics, if it doesn't work out then get an in-line device.

I see no reason the turn off pumps if the fish are not in distress from the motion.

Cheers,


----------



## Cherry

thank you x


----------



## Daz2162

I was going to suggest an in links, as thats my next purchase, along with co2 extinguisher and a solenoid, but ceg beat me to it. Haha. 
What size tank have you got cherry?? 
Daz2162

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cherry

I have a 200 litre tank (replacing everything by stealth while I save up for a bigger one!) 36inch long


----------



## Daz2162

Do you know the outputs of all your filters /pumps etc? 

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cherry

Just looked them up (better keep these facts somewhere
Fluval sea circulation pump (fish love to play in this - got it for the CO2) -5200 l/ph
Fluval 406 Filter 1250l/ph - just bought this (had an internal in before
Aquaone 1050 filter 1250 filter 1250 l/ph
aquaclearpowerhead with polisher 474 l/ph 
crikey its a lot
my guru at maidenhead aquatics told me "you can never have too much filtration!!
Havent changed sponges in my aquaone for four years (rinse regularly) 

seems to keep the algae at bay(well none really) (that and the CO2 - that ran out when I was on holiday - black hair algae urgh)

have got such high filtration as I want to keep more fish 
just upgraded my lights too


----------



## Daz2162

Haha jeez, yeah that's alot. Bare in mind you can minus those numbers by about 15/20% due to filtration media. 

Do all your pumps face back to front or do some go left to right and vice versa?? 

Darren

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cherry

yea - the aquaone is definitely not belting out its full wack.
The two filters I have spray bars at the back ,so the water sort of rolls in a circular motion round to help with CO2 I found the duck pipes (?) too powerful)
I have the two p umps in the right hand corner - the fluval to try and blow the CO2 about Ceg404(clive?) suggested I put the CO2 under the in pipe but it wont fit - the fish love playing in the current
I think I may try an in -line device - where do you get them? (although I may try the smaller fitting first)


----------



## Daz2162

Well just a suggestion, if you havent already, put your diffuser under your spray bar, that way it will tumble from top to bottom. Im getting an inline soon, from aqua essentials. 
Darren 

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cherry

I tried that ,but it was too big.I have ordered one of those high power diffusers from aqua essentials,so will try that thanks.It takes a while to learn the terms! Took me ages to find what a reactor was - turns out the filter will be fine! Looked at that in line reactor,-seems a great idea ,but think i will have to wait a bit as I have already spent loads - also cant work out how to fit it on my fluval filter as it has ribbed piping rather than usual.- bearing in mind what you said about flow.
I will go and speak to my Guru at Maidenhead aqatics - better still I will until you have tried it!


----------



## Daz2162

Haha good work, let me be the guinea pig! I'll report back when its tried and tested! 

Darren

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cherry

btw - I have now got the high powered diffuser,have put it under my input pipe of my bigger filter and its working really well - the bubbles are really tiny  and they go up the pipe a treat!


----------



## ADA

Quick question in the same field, I've just bought a 240L optiwhite, got 2 filters, I know it's best to have the outlet next to the inlet for a circular flow but would you put both sets side by side on the same end or put the two sets on opposite corners of the tank? I was thinking same end otherwise one filter would just feed the other? 

Steve


----------



## ceg4048

Hello,
        From a flow/distribution perspective, place the filter inlet tubes wherever you want. They do not contribute much to the shape of the flow field. The placement and orientation of the outlets are much more important. THEY must be on the same side pointing in the same direction, otherwise the risk of energy cancellation and incoherent flow is high. When multiple outlets work together they multiply the flow energy and contribute to uniform flow.

Cheers,


----------



## ADA

Thanks ceg


----------



## Martin in Holland

I am thinking of getting a (small) submersed pump hook up a spray bar and place this on the bottom of the tank all the way in the back facing the holes (output) up, this to get more flow to the plants that are placed far back, I hope this upward flow creates suction and therefor getting a better distribution to the back.
Any thoughts on this?


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Martin,
              This could work, depending on obstacles along the back wall. This should help pull flow across the bottom, but if it's too strong it may disrupt the horizontal flow across the top from the main spraybar.

Cheers,


----------



## Martin in Holland

ceg4048 said:


> Hi Martin,
> This could work, depending on obstacles along the back wall. This should help pull flow across the bottom, but if it's too strong it may disrupt the horizontal flow across the top from the main spraybar.
> 
> Cheers,


I left about 5cm free from the back when planting, but plants are stubborn ..I guess it will be OK. My tank is 300liter, I was thinking to use a 500-1000 liter/hour pump


----------



## Luis Batista

ceg4048 said:


> Hi Steve,
> Here is a photo of a sample installation. You might just be able to make out the back glass. There are actually 3 spraybars. Two of them are ganged together on the left side with an inch long piece of tubing. I was too cheap to buy a 4th for the right side. Remember this is a 6 footer. This is not a very sophisticated installation at all. They are just mounted on the back with suckers and just joined to the filter outlet tube. I don't even use the shepherds crook, no need and better flexibility. Now, Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble would have done it this way so I'm not particularly proud of it's lack of modern aesthetic appeal but it works. The holes in the bars point straight out - horizontal towards the front, maybe even slightly upwards. I previously had HC in the foreground which used to just decay when I used the £40 lily pipes. Subsequently, after spraybar installation, huge mats of it would detach from the substrate due to the buoyancy from pearling, which actually became annoying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This shot shows the bars more closely and shows the orientation of the holes. I found a much better behaved ground cover plant (P. helferi) and it also benefits from this simple configuration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I use two inline diffusers and two filters, one is a Cal Aqua and the other an AM1000. Ideally, mount the spraybar centrally but you can do as I did and join two bars together. This gives you better coverage and lowers the exit velocity at each hole because there are more holes. On my setup there are a few gaps, like at the two far ends of course and a foot or so in the middle. No big deal.
> 
> Remember, if they look too ugly you can mount them way up at the waterline so that you hardly notice them. Of course, real aquascapers would never even consider such a cheesy setup, but hey, it works. Just you try growing a 6 foot mat of HC 2 feet underwater. _Not even remotely easy_.  This give you the best chance. Anyway, I've completed a self hypnosis course and now I tell myself "what spraybars?"
> 
> Cheers,




Hi ceg

do you think that a Tetratec EX700, 700L/H, could be strong enought something like this but shorter, my tank is 100 cm.
Because of your talk about encrease flow on one of my posts, i´m thinking of buying a pvc pipe, drill some holes on it and try it...

Cheers


----------



## ceg4048

Hi Luis,
           It\s very difficult to predict. The length of the pipe, it's diameter, filter tubing length, the hole sizes and number of holes as well as how far the pump head sits below the water surface all affect the ability of the pump to deliver adequate flow. It's a good idea you mention to just get some cheap plastic pipes and see how it goes.

Cheers,


----------



## Luis Batista

ceg4048 said:


> Hi Luis,
> It\s very difficult to predict. The length of the pipe, it's diameter, filter tubing length, the hole sizes and number of holes as well as how far the pump head sits below the water surface all affect the ability of the pump to deliver adequate flow. It's a good idea you mention to just get some cheap plastic pipes and see how it goes.
> 
> Cheers,


Will give it a try.
Just one more thing.
In theory if i put a smaller diameter of pipe, it will compensate the larger length right?
It will create more pressure to the last holes...
Being the tank 100 cm it need about what? 80 cm of pipe is enough to the back wall?

Once again, thanks for all your advices...

Best regards,

Luis batista

Enviado através da ponta dos meus dedos!


----------



## foxfish

You are asking very difficult questions as it really depends on mutable factors!
If you could set up an experiment in the bath or paddling pool you would see the effects of ... pipe length, how bends effect flow, how height effects flow & how pipe restrictions effects flow.
Some factors can be very noticeable with the naked eye but try filling a bucket & timing the period it takes to fill.
Most of the pumps we use have low power consumption & plastic impellers & in turn are effected by small changes that restrict the flow.


----------



## ceg4048

The idea is to get as much mass flow rate as possible. Reducing pipe diameter severely reduces mass flow rate and will not compensate for anything.

Think about your garden hose when you restrict the outlet orifice size. The spray comes out faster but much less mass of water squirts out of the orifice.

80 cm sounds fine, but in the end, you'll have to look at your installation and see how much room you'll need for connections and so forth. The PVC is very cheap so get long lengths and experiment in order to find the answers based on your configuration.

Cheers,


----------



## Luis Batista

foxfish said:


> You are asking very difficult questions as it really depends on mutable factors!
> If you could set up an experiment in the bath or paddling pool you would see the effects of ... pipe length, how bends effect flow, how height effects flow & how pipe restrictions effects flow.
> Some factors can be very noticeable with the naked eye but try filling a bucket & timing the period it takes to fill.
> Most of the pumps we use have low power consumption & plastic impellers & in turn are effected by small changes that restrict the flow.



Hi
i have a circulation pump of 600l/h but im thinking of using my tetratec filter insted because of the inline diffusor

cheers


----------



## Luis Batista

ceg4048 said:


> The idea is to get as much mass flow rate as possible. Reducing pipe diameter severely reduces mass flow rate and will not compensate for anything.
> 
> Think about your garden hose when you restrict the outlet orifice size. The spray comes out faster but much less mass of water squirts out of the orifice.
> 
> 80 cm sounds fine, but in the end, you'll have to look at your installation and see how much room you'll need for connections and so forth. The PVC is very cheap so get long lengths and experiment in order to find the answers based on your configuration.
> 
> Cheers,




will study well this stuff
Perhaps the pump boosts a pvc pipe on half the back wall and the filter, who have the inline diffusor, the other half. maybe the flow of the 2 together can spread the gas evenly on all tank...

thanks


----------



## Luis Batista

Just another question.
Does this system with a spraybar on the back wall, the intake will work ok? Does the Walter of the other side of the intake can go to the intake pipe?

Enviado através da ponta dos meus dedos!


----------



## ceg4048

Put the intake wherever you want.

Cheers,


----------



## Jason Blake

Hi,

I think after reading this thread that I just about understand the flow and distribution needed in a plant aquarium, however I still  I cannot really workout how to implement adaquate flow and distribution in my aquarium. Fluid dynamics was never really my strong point. I think the biggest problem I have is that my aquarium is hexagonal in shape and therefore I think that the shape alone my inhibit such a goal. I have come up with three possible solutions and I would really appreciate some construction advice and recommendations.

*Setup 1* - This  setup uses three spray bars along the three back walls of the aquarium. Remembering what Ceg has said about uniform flow and ensuring that it is additive and not subtractive, I am not sure if because of the angles of the two outer walls if they would cancel out the flow from the spray bar at the back facing forwards.



 
*Setup 2* - In the setup the spray bars are on the two side walls and as above I am not sure if the angles will cancel each other out.



 
*Setup 3 -* In this setup I would put the spray the whole length of the tank. I think out of all three this will give me the best flow and distribution as there will be no converging angles. However I am concerned as to whether or not the flow would come up the back of the aquarium to complete the full flow circle? I am not too bothered about the bar being in the middle of the aquarium as far as asthetics as I believe one way or another this can be sorted. I am only concerned about acheiving optimal flow.


 
To create the flow I will be using an external cannister filter with an inline diffuser. This filter has varible flow rates starting at 300 l/hr upto 1610 l/hr. I have a 60 Litre aquarium, extra flow pumps can be used if necessary.

I would really appeciate some advice.

Thanks.


----------



## ceg4048

Hello,
         Thanks for providing the images. That makes it very easy to understand the question.
It will require som experimentation no doubt, but I would start with a scheme based on Setup 3.

It may not be necessary to mount the spraybar in the center. First of all that might look a bit strange and it might require some imagination to mout it and to route all the plumbing.

What has worked to some degree in corner and triangle tanks is to move the bar towards the rear wall, just about where your red blob is. Although it may not span the entire width across the hexagon, the flow will tend to be a bit more uniform (I think).

Not having played with hexagons, I'm not 100% certain, but definitely that is the logical starting point.

Again, don't spend a lot of money on materials. Use cheap PVC and drill the holes, or find the cheaper Fluval or Eheim green spraybars and cut them to various sizes.

Cheers,


----------



## Jason Blake

Thanks for the response. I appreciate it.

Yes, odd shape tanks are the bane of my life, but this tank was giving to me for free, so as they say you shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth. 

That being said though if I can overcome the shape barriers I think it could look good. 

Thanks again.


----------



## Luis Batista

Let´s hear some expert opinion about what i did.
My filter hose is 12mm inside.
The pvc pipe is 12mm inside also.
The pvc pipe is 82cm long to a 100cm tank.
Each hole is 2mm diameter and i drill 9 holes.
I have a bit more pressure in each hole that with the stock 20cm spraybar with 5mm holes and have a nice surface agitation.
I try do do the math with the diameter squared but get lost really quick .
By that equation, am i close to it or not?



Thanks all


----------



## ceg4048

Sorry Luis but that video makes me nauseous. There is too much motion.
Do you have a tripod? It''s also overexposed when you point it near the lights. Very painful viewing on my monitor.
In any case, it would be better to drop the level of the water so we can see the individual jets.
Also you need to look at the plant leaves to see if they are moving at all locations.

Cheers,


----------



## NC10

Luis Batista said:


> Let´s hear some expert opinion about what i did.
> My filter hose is 12mm inside.
> The pvc pipe is 12mm inside also.
> The pvc pipe is 82cm long to a 100cm tank.
> Each hole is 2mm diameter and i drill 9 holes.
> I have a bit more pressure in each hole that with the stock 20cm spraybar with 5mm holes and have a nice surface agitation.
> I try do do the math with the diameter squared but get lost really quick .
> By that equation, am i close to it or not?
> 
> Thanks all



12mm ID works out at an area of 113.1.

A 2mm hole works out at 3.14.

You've drilled 9, so 9 x 3.14 gives you a total of 28.26. That's way down on where you should be so you're going to be restricting a lot of flow.

If you just re drill the 9 holes you already have with a 4mm bit, it will give you 113.13 which is pretty much bang on.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Luis Batista

NC10 said:


> 12mm ID works out at an area of 113.1.
> 
> A 2mm hole works out at 3.14.
> 
> You've drilled 9, so 9 x 3.14 gives you a total of 28.26. That's way down on where you should be so you're going to be restricting a lot of flow.
> 
> If you just re drill the 9 holes you already have with a 4mm bit, it will give you 113.13 which is pretty much bang on.
> 
> Hope that helps.


Thanks NC10

that is the help that i need

Thanks alot

Enviado através da ponta dos meus dedos!


----------



## Luis Batista

NC10 said:


> 12mm ID works out at an area of 113.1.
> 
> A 2mm hole works out at 3.14.
> 
> You've drilled 9, so 9 x 3.14 gives you a total of 28.26. That's way down on where you should be so you're going to be restricting a lot of flow.
> 
> If you just re drill the 9 holes you already have with a 4mm bit, it will give you 113.13 which is pretty much bang on.
> 
> Hope that helps.



Can you explain how you get that numbers 113.1 and 3,14?
i must not be the only one that dont understand nothing from this equation...

once again, thanks NC10!!!


----------



## ian_m

Area is pi R squared.

So R is 6mm in first case, the A = pi x 6 x 6 = 3.141 x 6 x 6 = 113 mm2.


----------



## NC10

Luis Batista said:


> Can you explain how you get that numbers 113.1 and 3,14?
> i must not be the only one that dont understand nothing from this equation...
> 
> once again, thanks NC10!!!



The easiest way is to just put your info in here: https://www.google.co.uk/#q=circle area calculator

Don't forget that you use the radius to work the area out and not the diameter. So for 12mm ID you would put 6mm in.

Do the same for whatever size holes you want and just multiply the holes until you're close enough to the total area. Just play around with different combos of hole size and number until you're happy. In your case though, 9 x 4mm holes is as perfect as you'll get.

Let me know if you need any more help.


----------



## Luis Batista

ian_m said:


> Area is pi R squared.
> 
> So R is 6mm in first case, the A = pi x 6 x 6 = 3.141 x 6 x 6 = 113 mm2.


Where do you get the 6mm?

Enviado através da ponta dos meus dedos!


EDIT: its the radius of the hose right? If the hose were 20mm ID it will be 10 in the equation?


----------



## ian_m

R is radius of circle, which is half the diameter.


----------



## Luis Batista

ian_m said:


> R is radius of circle, which is half the diameter.


Thanks ian


Enviado através da ponta dos meus dedos!


----------



## Luis Batista

NC10 said:


> The easiest way is to just put your info in here: https://www.google.co.uk/#q=circle area calculator
> 
> Don't forget that you use the radius to work the area out and not the diameter. So for 12mm ID you would put 6mm in.
> 
> Do the same for whatever size holes you want and just multiply the holes until you're close enough to the total area. Just play around with different combos of hole size and number until you're happy. In your case though, 9 x 4mm holes is as perfect as you'll get.
> 
> Let me know if you need any more help.


With that 14mm my brain started to melt again   bit i saw that must have been a mistake...
Thanks NC for all your help

Enviado através da ponta dos meus dedos!


----------



## NC10

lol Sorry mate, I edited as soon as I realised


----------



## Luis Batista

Its better to let it be with 9 holes and just make them 4mm or stay with the 2mm ones and drill another 9 holes?
In the end the area will be the same and more holes perhaps was better to get all places in the tank.
Or like MG ex wife said im a very complicated guy?

Enviado através da ponta dos meus dedos!


----------



## NC10

No it wouldn't work like that.

2mm area is 3.14 and 4mm area is 12.57 and not 6.28 like you would expect.

Easiest is just to make the existing holes 4mm, or start again with a new spray bar if you want a few more holes......or you could drill 36 holes in total at 2mm to make up the area. Seems a lot though.


----------



## Luis Batista

NC10 said:


> No it wouldn't work like that.
> 
> 2mm area is 3.14 and 4mm area is 12.57 and not 6.28 like you would expect.
> 
> Easiest is just to make the existing holes 4mm, or start again with a new spray bar if you want a few more holes......or you could drill 36 holes in total at 2mm to make up the area. Seems a lot though.


Just finish drilling it with the 4mm holes.
All the pressure that i had from the 2mm holes are gone but now it seems that the water dont have enough pressure to hit the glass and go down to the ground...
Lets see...

Enviado através da ponta dos meus dedos!


----------



## foxfish

I am  not convinced by this theory, I just don't see how it can work in the real world as the individual pump performance & head rating will effect the strength of the jetted water?
I can see how the calculation is done but personally I would drill several trial bars until you get the best performance.


----------



## NC10

foxfish said:


> I am  not convinced by this theory, I just don't see how it can work in the real world as the individual pump performance & head rating will effect the strength of the jetted water?
> I can see how the calculation is done but personally I would drill several trial bars until you get the best performance.



I think all it comes down to is keeping the flow as it was originally intended, regardless of pump or flow rate. You can't take head into account really because everyone's pump is going to be different heights anyway and even a cheapo pump still has a certain size pipework it's been designed for.

Sticking with the in/out theory should hopefully see the pump turning over near enough the same amount as if you just had it coming straight out of the end of the pipe, minus a little restriction from the spray bar holes of course.

Going less than area is going to hold the pump back, not really a problem if you've over spec'd it, but if the pump is solely providing the 10x, you're going to want to squeeze every last drop out.

Going bigger than area is going to affect the pump as well. You're going to start losing pressure.

Keeping the in/out the same just means you're losing minimal flow and performance IMO Changing the number and size of holes is how you can alter the flow or velocity to suit your setup, but still going along with the same area theory.


----------



## Luis Batista

NC10 said:


> I think all it comes down to is keeping the flow as it was originally intended, regardless of pump or flow rate. You can't take head into account really because everyone's pump is going to be different heights anyway and even a cheapo pump still has a certain size pipework it's been designed for.
> 
> Sticking with the in/out theory should hopefully see the pump turning over near enough the same amount as if you just had it coming straight out of the end of the pipe, minus a little restriction from the spray bar holes of course.
> 
> Going less than area is going to hold the pump back, not really a problem if you've over spec'd it, but if the pump is solely providing the 10x, you're going to want to squeeze every last drop out.
> 
> Going bigger than area is going to affect the pump as well. You're going to start losing pressure.
> 
> Keeping the in/out the same just means you're losing minimal flow and performance IMO Changing the number and size of holes is how you can alter the flow or velocity to suit your setup, but still going along with the same area theory.


In my case i think that the best holes will be between 2mm and 4mm, 3 or 3.5mm.
With 2mm have a good water pressure but reduced flow.
Now with 4mm almost dont have any pressure, the first hole dont have any pressure, the water pass trow it and dont exit.
Tomorow will do another spray pipe with 3mm holes to see if i get a more balance between speed and flow...

Enviado através da ponta dos meus dedos!


----------



## foxfish

You could just use some electricians tape to cover the holes up & re drill some different ones alongside  until you find what works best, then make a nice new one.


----------



## Luis Batista

foxfish said:


> You could just use some electricians tape to cover the holes up & re drill some different ones alongside  until you find what works best, then make a nice new one.




you sir, are a fu#$5ing genius!!!
Will do that!!!


----------



## NC10

Exactly, it's all about finding the balance that's right for your setup. If you can afford to lose some flow in favour of pressure then go for it.


----------



## Luis Batista

NC10 said:


> Exactly, it's all about finding the balance that's right for your setup. If you can afford to lose some flow in favour of pressure then go for it.


My 5 year TETRATEC EX 700 dont let me do that.
Perhaps a new impeller will help to restore some of the lost 700L\H...

Enviado através da ponta dos meus dedos!


----------



## andy-mu

Great thread this. I have issues with flow. This will help


----------



## Jason Blake

Hi,

I was hoping to use an external flow with a variable flow rate from 300-1610 l/ph, however this is looking less likely now so I have a question about acheiving the right flow rate.

I understand that I am roughly for 10 time aquarium volume per hour. I have a 60 litre aquarium so I am looking for a flow rate of 600 litres per hour.

From what I have read, the stated flow rates stated on filters it not what you will actually get and this can be reduced by about 50% if not more. 

So does this 10 x rule take into account that stated flow rates are not achievable? Am I looking for a 600 l/ph filter where I might only actually be getting 300 l/ph or am I looking for a 1200 l/ph and hopefully achieving much closer to an actual flow rate of 600 l/ph.

I don't want to be any problems with flow and distribution but at the same time I don''t want to be blast my plants to kingdom come.

Thanks.


----------



## ian_m

Jason Blake said:


> So does this 10 x rule take into account that stated flow rates are not achievable


Yes. The 10x rate is based on what the manufacturer states on the box, rather than what you actually get in practice, which as you point out may be 50% less.


----------



## Jason Blake

Hi,

I have now got my aquarium setup and running, however as with all great plans I have hit some teething problems. The main problem is my external filter. It has an adjustable flow however it periodically just switches up the flow to the full rate which is simply just too strong. Max flow is 1610 l/ph and I only have a 60 Litre aquarium. I have also found that if for any reason the power goes off ever for a split second, when the filter restarts itself and it automatically starts at full flow. I go away regularly and I am terrified of the consquences if the power was to go off whilst I am away.

Therefore I am looking for a new filter. I have noticed that Tom Barr strongly recommends a Dry / Wet filter, which I am assuming a hang on the back filter is a version of this type of filter. What I was wondering is how would one setup the flow using such a filter as obviously there is no spray bar to direct the flow? I would just like to point out that I am only considering this type of filter at the moment and no decision has been made.

Thanks


----------



## NattyAntlers

Could you use an Eheim single tap or double if better, set the filter for max flow then turn it down by closing the tap a bit?
If its mechanical/lever flow adjustment as mine is then it must be a loose lever so you could tape it up or fashion a insert to stop it moving.


----------



## foxfish

Wet & dry filters are normally gravity fed so they either fit in a below tank sump, or are situated above the tank!
I think that Eheim make a wet & dry canister filter but how effective it is I cant say?
To the best of my knowledge Tom uses sumps on all his tanks.
A sump & trickle tower (wet n dry filter) is not a basic option!


----------



## Jason Blake

Thanks for the suggestions. 

No, a sump with a wet dry tower is not basic and beyond what I can implement on this tank, perhaps on a bigger tank. 

So back to the drawing board.

Thanks again for the suggestions.


----------



## ceg4048

If you want to restrict the flow then do the opposite of what we have been suggesting in this and other threads. Use a reducer on the hose to lower the flow rate or stuff the filter with lots of high drag media such as sintered glass, or any combination of these.

Cheers,


----------



## Jason Blake

Hi,

Me again. I'm a little unsure just how important surface agitation is? I was under the impression that surface agitation helps with gaseous exchange and to help deplete the CO2 during lights off. I currently have high surface agitation but it does NOT actually break the surface. I thought this was right, however I cannot find the thread on here that explained why it was right and so I am now wondering if I have completely misunderstood the whole surface agitation concept?

I ask because I have got a CO2 problem with some Anubias and I am trying to provide some shade for them. I am trying to use some Pistia stratiotes as shade. After being given some advice about floating some airline tubing on the surface to keep the Pistia stratiotes in place (I don't want it to cover the whole surface, just the Anubias) creating a kind of floating island. I have found that the surface agitation / current is pulling the Pistia stratiotes under the water and out of the island, which obviously negates the objective of trying to provide the shade in the right place. I also believe the Pistia stratiotes is not going to take to kindly to having its leaves submerged on a regular basis.

At the moment my spray bar points towards the surface. So I was wondering if I was to reposition the spray bar to point more forwards and not so upwards, that this might stop pulling the Pistia stratiotes under the water and out of the island. I just concerned that this will of course reduce the surface agitation and if this will have a negative effect on my tank?

Any help and advice is very much appreciated.

Thanks


----------



## ceg4048

If you review the data in the thread you'll note clear indications that the holes should point horizontally, so why worry? There are no negative consequences if you are following the basic procedures and configuration. Surface agitation provides an important function in gas exchange at night and in breaking up surface films. If you don't have any surface agitation then there might be some issues, but if you do have surface agitation then there is no point in being obsessive about it, or in paying so much attention to it that you miss the larger picture. 

More important than surface agitation, by a long margin is having excellent flow, distribution and CO2 dissolution.

Cheers,


----------



## Jason Blake

Thank you Clive.

I wasn't trying to be obsessive about the agitation. I was just trying to find out how important it was and if a reduction in agitation would cause any problems with the delicate aquarium balances. I am growing increasingly weary that changing one thing can at times disrupt a load of of other factors that I wouldn't have even thought about.

Due to the position of spray bar i.e. it being really rather deep I have had to position the holes pointing more upwards towards the surface to get the surface agitation.which at the time and by your response you agree is important to some extent. If position them straight ahead, straight at the front glass, then there is no agitation at all. I cannot higher the bar due to hood constraints and spray bar construction.

As for the flow I am fairly confident that, that is ok. All plants in all locations are swaying in the breeze. I believe that is the indication of good flow besides what the plants will indicate, in time? I spent a lot of time reading your threads about flow and asking questions. My CO2 is disolved using an UP Inline diffuser. In the last couple of hours of the CO2 period there is a very fine mist in the tank. My drop checker is often turned yellow, I have no livestock at the moment. I am trying to reduce the CO2 to keep it limeade green.

Just out of curiosity and speaking hypothetically, if all agitation is stopped would a surface skimmer attachment on the intake pipe going to be good enough to break up bio film? But then again I guess this wouldn't address the gas exchange advantages during lights off?

All I am trying to do, as mentioned is provide shade for my Anubias as per your advice.


----------



## ceg4048

Correct, and maybe it wouldn't be a problem even so. Some people use skimmers and report good success with them. Degree of film production is a function of the plants health. Poor health produces more film, so if the plants are healthy the film may not be an issue.  If the number and mass of fish is low then gas exchange at night may not be problematic. There are lots of different possibilities and everything is a compromise. The criticality of any one factor is dependent on the level or degree of other factors. You just have to try it and see how it goes.

Cheers,


----------



## Jason Blake

Okie Dokie, thanks for the help.


----------



## sonicninja

Hi Jason, what filter is it? If you have an eheim 3E then you can turn it to manual mode and it won't adjust the flow unless you ask it to. Haven't read this whole thread so sorry if someone already mentioned this!
Keith


----------



## Bhu

Hi Clive

I have a 55cm cube at the moment. I'm running an eheim spray bar (which has an UP co2 difusser on outlet) from the left side which worked well to begin with, but now with all the extra growth I'm noticing a lot of dead spots and lots of leaves that just aren't moving. Some even getting dust on them. So I can't add a larger eheim canister as the cabinet won't allow. I decided to go for a maxijet 1000l/h with a spray bar, which will double my flow. Here's the crunch, how best to combine the flow? Im thinking that I will move the eheim spray bar to the back as you suggest and run the maxijet parallel just above it. This one won't have any co2 but will help to circulate the co2 coming out of the eheim spray bar. I'm hoping to push it further!

What do you think? Can this work? I hope so. But maybe there is a better solution? 

Cheers

Bhu


----------



## ceg4048

Try both ways, with the powerhead at the center above the spraybar as well as below the spraybar. Many people do this. You should also consider removing some filter media if you have the filter stuffed with media.

Cheers,


----------



## Bhu

Thank you will let you know how it goes.


----------



## Gilles

ceg4048 said:


> From a flow/distribution perspective, place the filter inlet tubes wherever you want. They do not contribute much to the shape of the flow field. The placement and orientation of the outlets are much more important. THEY must be on the same side pointing in the same direction, otherwise the risk of energy cancellation and incoherent flow is high. When multiple outlets work together they multiply the flow energy and contribute to uniform flow.


While thinking of adding a NW pump i was doubting how to place the outflow of that NW. If i read this entire thread correctly, i would have to place the outlet of the co2 enriched water just like the filter outlet, across the entire length of the tank, but with slightly larger holes, to prevent that my plants are blown out of the substrate. Am i right?


----------



## ceg4048

Well it may not have to be as elaborate as a double spraybar, if that's what you mean. You can use a second spraybar if necessary but you may get away with simply having a single pump outlet mounted below the spraybar of the primary filter/pump. Always try the simpler approaches first.

Cheers,


----------



## Gilles

Well i like the idea of a spraybar as it does not give much current in my tank. Reason for opting for a second spraybar is this;
if i put the outlet of the co2 in one corner and blow it in thesame direction as my spraybar (e.g. horizontally across the length of the tank) i am afraid that my background plants are affected by the strong current...


----------



## Manisha

ceg4048 said:


> Hi Steve,
> Here is a photo of a sample installation. You might just be able to make out the back glass. There are actually 3 spraybars. Two of them are ganged together on the left side with an inch long piece of tubing. I was too cheap to buy a 4th for the right side. Remember this is a 6 footer. This is not a very sophisticated installation at all. They are just mounted on the back with suckers and just joined to the filter outlet tube. I don't even use the shepherds crook, no need and better flexibility. Now, Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble would have done it this way so I'm not particularly proud of it's lack of modern aesthetic appeal but it works. The holes in the bars point straight out - horizontal towards the front, maybe even slightly upwards. I previously had HC in the foreground which used to just decay when I used the £40 lily pipes. Subsequently, after spraybar installation, huge mats of it would detach from the substrate due to the buoyancy from pearling, which actually became annoying.
> View attachment 76935
> 
> This shot shows the bars more closely and shows the orientation of the holes. I found a much better behaved ground cover plant (P. helferi) and it also benefits from this simple configuration.
> View attachment 76936
> 
> I use two inline diffusers and two filters, one is a Cal Aqua and the other an AM1000. Ideally, mount the spraybar centrally but you can do as I did and join two bars together. This gives you better coverage and lowers the exit velocity at each hole because there are more holes. On my setup there are a few gaps, like at the two far ends of course and a foot or so in the middle. No big deal.
> 
> Remember, if they look too ugly you can mount them way up at the waterline so that you hardly notice them. Of course, real aquascapers would never even consider such a cheesy setup, but hey, it works. Just you try growing a 6 foot mat of HC 2 feet underwater. _Not even remotely easy_.  This give you the best chance. Anyway, I've completed a self hypnosis course and now I tell myself "what spraybars?"
> 
> Cheers,



Apologies if this is a silly question - but is the water low because...? Is it to increase surface agitation from the spray bars? Or is it to decrease the depth so light penetration is improved?

Many thanks


----------



## arfiorisantos

George framer

Enviado de meu LG-K430 usando Tapatalk


----------



## Costa

I've read this thread from start to finish and can't help but wonder, instead of diy spray bar solutions, can't we just use a water maker that propels water across the length of the tank and get the flow sorted once and for all?

Thank you all for the great info.


----------



## ian_m

See Zeus's journal about using a monster filter and custom spray bars to get decent flow across the length of the tank.


----------



## ceg4048

Costa said:


> I've read this thread from start to finish and can't help but wonder, instead of diy spray bar solutions, can't we just use a water maker that propels water across the length of the tank and get the flow sorted once and for all?
> 
> Thank you all for the great info.


Hello,
          Yes, of course. Anything that enhances flow and distribution in the tank is useful and we are not bound to any particular method. The OP started the thread trying to understand the science and purpose of flow, filtration and distribution. At the time, there was a lot of confusion regarding this aspect of a planted tank. We simply offered an explanation of the concepts and offered possible methods and solutions that were alternative to the standard methods being used.

At the time, and even today, many folks were not aware of the importance and impact of good flow/distribution.

Making people aware of the critical nature of  good flow/distribution in a planted tank is much more important than the method used to achieve it.
One just has to ensure that the method is valid and that it achieves the goal.

Cheers,


----------



## Costa

Dear ceg- Understood. Thank you for the wisdom, I religiously follow your posts.


----------



## Andrew Butler

Jumping on this thread............
Firstly has anyone managed to find either a decent ready made spraybar kit or a pipe and fittings in black?
Secondly how does everyone go about ensuring they have the 'correct flow'? - I'm sure this is not an easy question to answer. Also how do people that only run little glass lilly pipes end up having great results? I find I'm having soil move unless it's under a carpet, I can't be the only one; can I? I'm using the split outlet supplied with fluval G6


----------



## ian_m

Andrew Butler said:


> Firstly has anyone managed to find either a decent ready made spraybar kit or a pipe and fittings in black?


https://www.jbl.de/en/products/detail/4596/jbl-outset-spray


----------



## Andrew Butler

ian_m said:


> https://www.jbl.de/en/products/detail/4596/jbl-outset-spray


thanks for the input, I came across these but there's no mention of  whether you can add extra pieces to it which I'm sure you can but involves buying another kit


----------



## ian_m

Andrew Butler said:


> thanks for the input, I came across these but there's no mention of whether you can add extra pieces to it which I'm sure you can but involves buying another kit


I bought an extra set to go with my JBL e1501 so that the spray bar covers the full width of the back of the tank.


----------



## Zeus.

Andrew Butler said:


> Secondly how does everyone go about ensuring they have the 'correct flow'



planing and trial and error, watching plant grow and algae issues

early pic of twin spray bars on room divider tank, bar on right is aimed slightly towards the right side of tank knowadays





Smaller holes in spray bar gives less pump output but higher tank turnover and visa vesa. But not  too small OFC I have 25 4mm diameter holes on 500mm bar on left. Bar on right have increased the hole size (have a few different bars) to decrease flow ATM


----------



## Andrew Butler

Zeus. said:


> bar on right is aimed slightly towards the right side of tank knowadays


Were these 2 not competing against each other, I know you said it's now aimed slightly towards the right now but does than not stir the soil up being that close to the glass?


----------



## Zeus.

Andrew Butler said:


> Were these 2 not competing against each other



looks like it, but it worked and got great tank flow with the one on the right jetting the water down and too the left. The other reason for the initial setup was like you say



Andrew Butler said:


> I know you said it's now aimed slightly towards the right now but does than not stir the soil up being that close to the glass?



and Ian_m also said the same to me when I was discussing the my plans with him before any water in the tank. But know the carpet is well rooted not a problem really, esp when carpet is thick. After a trim when I'm cleaning the glass a few AS granules do slightly move about but no big deal. But its the flow at the carpet level I'm after so hopefully plenty of CO2/nutrients. Plus with the flow going straight down it will/should increase the flow within the substrate so increase the ionic exchange rate of the AS which then can buffer the water better.


----------



## ojustaboo

I've read through this excellent thread in it's entirety and have a couple of questions.

At the moment I have a Eheim Pro 3 with two spray bars linked together at the back of my tank, these ate 16/22.  It's being replaced by a Eheim classic that has 12/16 as it's output size.
I presume it's not wise to use the 16/22 spray bars as from this thread that the pressure is reduced by using a smaller pipe, hence then going to a bigger one, there wont be enough to properly drive the water to the bottom of the tank?  Or have I misunderstood?

The other question relates to the placement of them. I initially put my spray bar out of the water a bit like Ceg4048 post no 11 (except that my water line was up to the top of the tank, well up to 2" from the top, so when looking at it, it seems full of water), and my lovely wife complained about the noise it makes . Hence yesterday I moved it down so it was just under the water, hence it's a lot quieter, the plants are still all moving but does  that means there's no surface agitation? Or just because the spray bar output isn't hitting the water from above, the fact that the water is still moving, does that mean I do have surface agitation.  Or to put it another way, do I need to sweet talk my wife and turn the TV up or not 

I have the spray bars pointing directly towards the front of the tank, I suppose I would get more surface movement bu pointing them slightly up, but I also presume that by doing so would send the CO2 up too?


----------



## Andrew Butler

ojustaboo said:


> I initially put my spray bar out of the water a bit like Ceg4048 post no 11


I'm quite sure the photo was take during a water change to show the spraybar and how they were set up so they would normally be underwater.

Here are some of the words of wisdom Clive (Ceg) has given me which I'm sure he won't mind me sharing and might answer some of your questions.
Hope it helps!
Andy

_If you have healthy plants and clean water then you never need to worry about oxygenating the water. That is not what a filter does. In fact one could argue that filters actually decrease the oxygen content of the water because the bacteria inside the filter media use oxygen to perform their detoxification of ammonia and nitrite. This actually lowers the oxygen content of the water.

So in un-planted tanks the nozzles are often place at the surface of the water to create agitation which helps to off-gas Nitrogen and to oxygenate. If the tank is planted however then plants release Oxygen into the water column. That's what plants do. People don't realize this but all the oxygen in the world's atmosphere was created strictly by plants. That is their main function.

At night though, plants do not produce oxygen, they consume it and therefore compete with the animals for oxygen. Some people use an airstone at night to off-gas CO2 and to help with oxygenation at night, then they turn the airstone off during the day.

The purpose of a spraybar therefore is not to oxygenate but to provide the correct flow pattern in the tank in order to distribute nutrients and CO2 evenly to the plants. Spraybars do not do any more oxygenation than other nozzles, except for the fact that since they do a better job of distribution, the plants will do a better job of producing oxygen.
_


----------



## Andrew Butler

ian_m said:


> I bought an extra set to go with my JBL e1501 so that the spray bar covers the full width of the back of the tank


Did you also fork silly money out for the rubber suckers to fix it to the aquarium or find a cheaper source?

I'm not too impressed with the quality to be honest; not very straight, pipe connector not all that amazing either.
Does anyone else have any other suggestions?

All I want is a source of straight black pipe and fittings which are a sensible size (20mm ish) that I can solvent weld together and put a hose barb on - I just don't think it exists though does it?


----------



## ian_m

Andrew Butler said:


> Did you also fork silly money out for the rubber suckers to fix it to the aquarium or find a cheaper source?


Yes extra spray bar and suckers were not the cheapest on the market. But still working 5 years later.


----------



## Andrew Butler

ian_m said:


> https://www.jbl.de/en/products/detail/4596/jbl-outset-spray


I got one to have a look at, maybe the quality has changed but the fittings aren't all that great in quality, the pipes arent straight and for the connection between the two to clip in place makes the overall spray bar bent again.

Looking to make my own and paint it, just looking for the right paint before I commit.


----------



## Andrew Butler

So, what are peoples opinions on my spraybar so far? - I know mine!
The same will be repeated on the other side of the tank if I decide it's the way to go.
The link is to a video on my google photos
https://photos.app.goo.gl/SVcHfJlYWTzDLo7O2


----------



## Cactusface

Hi,
     Does not using a spray bar expel co2 from the water? just tring to sort this out spray bar or NOT!  perhaps pointing it at the glass and not the water would help co2 levels.
Regards

Mel.


----------



## Zeus.

Using a spray bar in mine gives much better even flow, which IMO helps reduce fluctuating [CO2]


----------



## ceg4048

Cactusface said:


> Hi,
> Does not using a spray bar expel co2 from the water? just tring to sort this out spray bar or NOT!  perhaps pointing it at the glass and not the water would help co2 levels.


FYI no matter what dissolution technique is used, about 90% of the CO2 injected goes straight out the window. This is unavoidable. The larger the bubbles, the stronger their buoyancy and therefore the quicker the bubble rises to the top and escapes, so the idea is to try to dissolve as much gas into the water as possible and/or to reduce the bubble size as much as possible to reduce it's buoyancy so that the bubble stays in the water as long as possible and gives it a chance to dissolve. The "micro-bubble", if it makes contact with the leafy, also allows the gas to be transported across the leaf surface more efficiently, i.e. it simulates the leaf being in the air.

When external diffusion is implemented correctly, and when the spraybar is configured/placed correctly, and when flow rate is correct, the water saturated with dissolved CO2 (and micro-bubbles) will be transported to the lower reaches of the tank and will deliver the gas to the leaves correctly.

In small tanks there may not be as much of a difference as compared to other methods, however, the larger the size of the tank the more benefit can be seen.

Incompetence in dissolution techniques, flow rate or  spraybar placement/configuration, of course will result in failure or in reduced effectiveness.

Cheers,


----------



## Kevin2016

If the filter isn’t strong enough, a powerhead will help by placing it direct above the spraybar or under it.

What if there is a 3D background. What would be the best position to place the powerhead ?


----------



## ceg4048

Hi,
    3D backgrounds make things worse by disrupting the flow patterns in the tank. The best one can do with these, if removal is not an option, is to cut a slot so that the powerhead can be made to fit above or below to maintain the straight on angle. The next best thing is to mount it on the side and to point it as much as possible towards the front.

Cheers,


----------



## Craig Matthews

1. They are closest to where decaying detritus settles and where pockets of ammonia develop, with a greater likelihood of producing algae due to a higher ammonia loading rate.

Clive, detritus/mulm seems to be a cosmos in regards to good are bad. It's known to be plant food but also organic to create bio film etc, excess ammonia etc.... What about gravel vacuuming do or don'? Is it important to have some for plant health?


----------



## Citrix

There are so many topics about flow importance and co2 distribution. Almost every issue people have with plants is adressed to bad  co2 flow/distribution.
But please take a look at this tank, it has almost zero co2 distribution, one diffuser on corner of 720l tank and grow seems perfect :


----------



## Edvet

It looks to be 1) lightly planted and 2) plants spaced away from each other making it easier for CO2 and ferts to reach all parts of the plants and 3) the amount of light dictates the amount of CO2/ferts/flow needed, we don't know lighting times and intensity


----------



## Ed Wiser

I think the above tank has low growing plants that would not block the flow. 
As plants grow up they slow the water flow. It’s funny they put a betta in a tank that big. It looks lost.


----------



## Zeus.

Great looking Scape. Low biomass, low flow too  
Wonder what it will be like in a few months. Think it was showing 20 days in (but could be wrong on that)


----------



## hypnogogia

ceg4048 said:


> Hi,
> 3D backgrounds make things worse by disrupting the flow patterns in the tank. The best one can do with these, if removal is not an option, is to cut a slot so that the powerhead can be made to fit above or below to maintain the straight on angle. The next best thing is to mount it on the side and to point it as much as possible towards the front.
> 
> Cheers,


Hi, so if I understand correctly, to increase flow with two flow pumps, these should be placed at either end of my spray bar (which runs the length of the tank, on the back glass)  and direct the flow in the same direction, forwards to the front glass.  Will this only I crease flow at the two extremities, of will it create better flow all round.  My tank is 120cm long.


----------



## ceg4048

hypnogogia said:


> Hi, so if I understand correctly, to increase flow with two flow pumps, these should be placed at either end of my spray bar (which runs the length of the tank, on the back glass)  and direct the flow in the same direction, forwards to the front glass.  Will this only I crease flow at the two extremities, of will it create better flow all round.  My tank is 120cm long.


Hi,
    I would start first by dividing the length in thirds (120/3) and place each of the two at 40cm from either end. If i only had a single powerhead them I would place it at the exact center (unless there were an obstacle there). In my view symmetry is all important...

Cheers,


----------



## ceg4048

Craig Matthews said:


> Clive, detritus/mulm seems to be a cosmos in regards to good are bad. It's known to be plant food but also organic to create bio film etc, excess ammonia etc.... What about gravel vacuuming do or don'? Is it important to have some for plant health?


Yes, it is a known plant food, and that is great in a low tech tank, however, in a fuel injected tank the breakdown of organic waste is also trigger for algal blooms. Besides, we are already feeding the plants with nutrients, are we not?

Cheers,


----------



## hypnogogia

ceg4048 said:


> Hi,
> I would start first by dividing the length in thirds (120/3) and place each of the two at 40cm from either end. If i only had a single powerhead them I would place it at the exact center (unless there were an obstacle there). In my view symmetry is all important...
> 
> Cheers,


Hi, 
I like that, thank you.


----------



## Hughesy124

Hi im thinking of keeping discus I have 45 litre tank an want to keep a pair is this doable ? 
Thanks


----------



## Wookii

Hughesy124 said:


> Hi im thinking of keeping discus I have 45 litre tank an want to keep a pair is this doable ?
> Thanks



I’m not sure if that’s a genuine question, or just some sort of baiting, but giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming the former, it should be patently obvious that you don’t house such large creatures in such a small enclosure?

I’m not sure I’d house any fish in a 45 litre tank, but if I did they would need to be the smallest species possible.


----------



## Hughesy124

Okay thanks now I know . So tetra would probably be a better option


----------



## Wookii

Hughesy124 said:


> Okay thanks now I know . So tetra would probably be a better option



Only the smallest tetra I would say. Maybe some Embers or Green Neons if you can provide some hiding places in the hardscape design. Even then though - I have Embers in a 60 litre tank, and whilst they are fine, they can lap the tank in about three seconds, and think they would be more comfortable in a larger tank.


----------



## hypnogogia

Wouldn’t something less active like a Betta be preferable?


----------



## Bowman

Hi everyone, I know this is a really old thread but I'm hoping someone could help me. I have a Jewel 190 trigon corner aquarium and have major problems with flow around the tank. I admit, its not a highly planted tank, so may not be the best thread to post on but there have been some very good suggestions regarding spray bars. As the tank is basically a wedge I am struggling to find a good solution. If anyone has any suggestions it would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Luketendo

Bowman said:


> Hi everyone, I know this is a really old thread but I'm hoping someone could help me. I have a Jewel 190 trigon corner aquarium and have major problems with flow around the tank. I admit, its not a highly planted tank, so may not be the best thread to post on but there have been some very good suggestions regarding spray bars. As the tank is basically a wedge I am struggling to find a good solution. If anyone has any suggestions it would be greatly appreciated.



Could use a circulation pump or two, like the ones used in marine aquariums.


----------



## Andrew Butler

Bowman said:


> Hi everyone, I know this is a really old thread but I'm hoping someone could help me. I have a Jewel 190 trigon corner aquarium and have major problems with flow around the tank. I admit, its not a highly planted tank, so may not be the best thread to post on but there have been some very good suggestions regarding spray bars. As the tank is basically a wedge I am struggling to find a good solution. If anyone has any suggestions it would be greatly appreciated.


I'm unsure where but there's a thread on this forum about the exact same issue you are talking about, if you or someone else can find it then it would hopefully help. I recall them trying a spraybar that went vertically, instead of horizontally but unsure exactly what the result was, sorry.


----------



## GHNelson

https://www.ukaps.org/forum/threads/trigon-190-crypt-corner-pfk-featured.22238/


----------



## Bowman

Thanks hogan, very interesting read as have the exact same tank. Can't believe how good all his scapes are! The Mrs decided to have her 2p last weekend and now I have to accommodate a pirate ship and some other novelty pirate items. Makes it exceptionally hard to scape but may try a cove type setting  or something similar.


----------



## aeneas

As some of you have seen I am currently building a ~1100L planted tank for discus and intending the scape to be inspired by Josh Sim's 2017 IAPLC winning "Congo" aquascape. Precise measurements of the tank are 243cm L x 65cm W x 70cm H (schemes below are drawn with exact proportions and I've already drafted in an approximate layout of the hardscape (black) and possible positioning of the outflow pipes (purple). I will have a 81cm wide (32") Exotic Marine Systems overflow box installed (as shown in the scheme below). The return pump from the sump will be Red Dragon 3 with 100W power and 12.000L/h flow, so plenty enough.
In order to plan the drilling of the tank, I now need to think about the most appropriate positioning of the return pipes in order to have the appropriate water circulation in the tank.
In the second picture below I was just "imagining" how a water flow might look like from three outflows, but I have no idea how the water would actually behave...
Any suggestions with the tank that large, what would be the ideal positioning of the outflow pipes? Equally spread like this, or more on one end to create a more horizontal-like flow? Should I use some additional powerheads for moving the water around the tank? What about airstones? I would prefer not to use them - they are noisy and I assume not helpful in retaining CO2? Any other suggestions / ideas regarding setting up the tank so it receives appropriate water flow and minimal possible dead spots?
Any help much appreciated!


----------



## Andrew Butler

@aeneas - looking through your main build thread quickly I'm unsure how far along you are so you will likely have to correct me.

Do you plan on having the background painted? Likely worth considering as there will be quite a lot of ugly pipework behind the aquarium.

Firstly are you having the aquarium built for you, if you are then why not just add a dedicated external overflow box built into/onto the aquarium with a removable weir comb?
Is there a reason you don't want to have the overflow central as I think suggest this is worth considering.

As for returns I think the overflow and sump will be there mainly to provide filtration and not the sole provider of flow, especially on a system this size and look towards some kind of powerheads to help instead. You can choose what you want and put them where you choose, the choice out there is so big now.
You could then dial the turnover of the sump right down and also wouldn't need such large returns either and I think you could reduce this to 2; one close to either end.
If you're unsure about things then you can always run them up and over like @Geoffrey Rea has in his smaller 600.
Is there any reason you opted for the Red Dragon? In the UK the Jecod pumps are great, very adjustable and cheap to both buy and run. Personally I always think it's a good idea to keep a spare with something like this.

Just to go back to your main thread, assuming you go down the AWC route I think it's very important to not entirely rely upon this system to clean the water as you would normally siphon and the easy way out could be to just have an external canister filter that you can go over the substrate with and essentially vacuum it, unless you planned to get clever with adding some kind of bypass onto your sump intake where you could tee off from one of your intakes, add a hose on and allow this to give you the same kind of feature. Not really thought through I know!

I'm unsure what supply and availability of certain materials are in your country so pointing you towards products becomes a little tricky.


----------



## aeneas

Andrew Butler said:


> @aeneas - looking through your main build thread quickly I'm unsure how far along you are so you will likely have to correct me.
> 
> Do you plan on having the background painted? Likely worth considering as there will be quite a lot of ugly pipework behind the aquarium.
> 
> Firstly are you having the aquarium built for you, if you are then why not just add a dedicated external overflow box built into/onto the aquarium with a removable weir comb?
> Is there a reason you don't want to have the overflow central as I think suggest this is worth considering.
> 
> As for returns I think the overflow and sump will be there mainly to provide filtration and not the sole provider of flow, especially on a system this size and look towards some kind of powerheads to help instead. You can choose what you want and put them where you choose, the choice out there is so big now.
> You could then dial the turnover of the sump right down and also wouldn't need such large returns either and I think you could reduce this to 2; one close to either end.
> If you're unsure about things then you can always run them up and over like @Geoffrey Rea has in his smaller 600.
> Is there any reason you opted for the Red Dragon? In the UK the Jecod pumps are great, very adjustable and cheap to both buy and run. Personally I always think it's a good idea to keep a spare with something like this.
> 
> Just to go back to your main thread, assuming you go down the AWC route I think it's very important to not entirely rely upon this system to clean the water as you would normally siphon and the easy way out could be to just have an external canister filter that you can go over the substrate with and essentially vacuum it, unless you planned to get clever with adding some kind of bypass onto your sump intake where you could tee off from one of your intakes, add a hose on and allow this to give you the same kind of feature. Not really thought through I know!
> 
> I'm unsure what supply and availability of certain materials are in your country so pointing you towards products becomes a little tricky.


Hi @Andrew Butler , thanks for the suggestions. Several topics raised so I will address each one separately:
1) *background*: I was planning to add a "cloudy/frosted" white sticky film to the background. This way I could keep lighter areas for some focal points but avoid seeing the pipes. I do not like black backgrounds or pictures as they would steer the attention away. Keep it simple.

2) *overflow*: Yes, I'm having the aquarium custom built. I was thinking about that but to me it seems that none of the DIY solutions come close to aesthetics of the boxes made by EMS or MM. The only thing I would maybe change is to spray paint them to a light grey or something like that... they all make boxes black so that one does not see algae too quickly... but I could make the box blend more with the cloudy background if I painted it lighter. Do you have an overflow with a removable weir comb in mind that you would recommend me to look into? I've not purchased the overflow box, so I can still change my mind and ask the builder to make the overflow if I give them a good design. Regarding central or offset positioning - I felt this gives me a better chance of hiding it with the aquascape; rule of thirds - I will not be building an "island" style aquascape so centre will not be as dense as edges... no other reason. Also this way I maybe create a more directional surface flow from left to right... 

3) *flow*: powerheads would probably make a lot of sense... I'd rather have them work from the back end though - not adding anything to the sides to keep the aesthetics clean. Any idea how to envisage water flow on paper? ...any thoughts on airstones for water movement? I'm not too sure about airstones... some people are very much in favour, but with my limited understanding of CO2 (it will be the first time I'll be using a high-tech CO2 tank) is that airstones would create too much surface agitation and CO2 loss? For the returns drilling 2 instead of 3 would be even better... but on a tank 240cm long, would this be enough? Again - any idea how to envisage a reasonable approximation of the water flow that might give an idea of what will be happening and to identify where flow needs to go? Adding powerheads will be easy; but drilling additional holes once the tank is installed will be impossible.

4) *pump*: I opted for Red Dragon after watching and reading many reviews; supposedly extremely reliable, durable and dead silent. Jebao next to it was way louder. It is expensive, but it should last a decade or more, so I wouldn't worry too much about the price then.

5) *vacuuming*: certainly I still intend to vacuum the gravel every now and then - I've got drains behind the aquarium so it will be an easy feature to do that once in a while while also trimming the plants etc. The whole AWC idea is more to keep the fresh water coming in continuously at small amounts not to lead to water parameter swings etc. Also I will make sure to think through the rest of the fail-safe features before getting the whole thing up and running... these are just the initial concepts where the general tank set-up is going.

6) *supplies*: whatever you can get in UK I can get here as well so if you have any good suggestions, feel free to mention - always keen to get good advice


----------



## erwin123

I have been reading about using Twinstar bubbles or fish food to trace the flow around the aquarium. 

Here's my contribution - set your CO2 to produce a lot more mist than normal in order to saturate the tank.  Before the main lights come on, in a preferably dim room, dip a high-powered narrow beam LED flashlight into your tank and you can see the CO2 mist movement of only the small area that your narrow-beam LED flashlight illuminates. Using this 'narrow beam', I can see areas of higher flow and slower flow, areas of higher and lower 'mist density'.  Even if I can't change the flow (its inevitable that some areas will be lower flow than others where Lily pipes are used), at least I can plant accordingly (i.e. plants that like flow put in areas of better flow)


----------



## aeneas

That’s a very good tip, thank you [mention]erwin123 [/mention] !! I will certainly use this technique!


----------



## raharlow

This was a very good read, thank you to all. I am currently designing a 65gal tank but I'm stuck on what to do. I want to use a spray bar, high on back wall, aiming slightly down and towards front for the circular flow, across top, down front, across bottom and up back. This tank will have a sump, so no surface agitation is needed nor wanted. I'll be incorporating an overflow, so this will take care of surface film. The internal box 3.75" tall, thru bulkhead fittings into external box, plumbed beananimal style and 8" wide (only 1.125 thick). I was considering putting it center back, but then how do I place the back spraybar? If under the box, will that be too low and not look good from an aesthetics standpoint? Tank is 36" wide, so do I incorporate 2 spraybars, 14" in length on either side of inner box? What about flow in center? Thoughts, ideas, suggestions?? Thanks!


----------



## ceg4048

Hello,
        It might help to provide some sketches as it's not really clear what the geometry you are thinking of/ If you have a center overflow box at the back then using two spraybars on either side will be fine, but it means you have to think harder about how to distribute CO2 to the spraybars using in-line injection. Gas splitters can be used but they are problematic trying to get equal gas amounts into each.

Cheers,


----------



## raharlow

ceg4048 said:


> Hello,
> It might help to provide some sketches as it's not really clear what the geometry you are thinking of/ If you have a center overflow box at the back then using two spraybars on either side will be fine, but it means you have to think harder about how to distribute CO2 to the spraybars using in-line injection. Gas splitters can be used but they are problematic trying to get equal gas amounts into each.
> 
> Cheers,


So have changed up my thinking. Here is a pic of where I'm at. Thinking of using a gyre pump to direct the flow across the top, length-wise, down side and then across bottom and back up.  Then dumping the return on opposite wall from gyre, directed down. Currently looking to use an existing AM1000 CO2 reactor on its own loop (only 3/8" id inlet and outlet so too restrictive to use in line with just return) feeding into return pump. Probably will use 3/4" loc-line to direct flow down opposite wall. With this flow, it made more sense to me to put overflow off center to maybe catch the updraft from counter-clockwise flow. 

Not sure if gyre pump will be too powerful with a 36"/90cm length. Would use lowest flow on gyre, but not sure. May just try to see if return flow is enough on its own. Not looking for surface agitation as I plan on have an aeration chamber in sump at point of entry. Just need overflow to break the surface film.

Very open to thoughts and ideas.


----------



## ceg4048

raharlow said:


> So have changed up my thinking. Here is a pic of where I'm at. Thinking of using a gyre pump to direct the flow across the top, length-wise, down side and then across bottom and back up. Then dumping the return on opposite wall from gyre, directed down. Currently looking to use an existing AM1000 CO2 reactor on its own loop (only 3/8" id inlet and outlet so too restrictive to use in line with just return) feeding into return pump. Probably will use 3/4" loc-line to direct flow down opposite wall. With this flow, it made more sense to me to put overflow off center to maybe catch the updraft from counter-clockwise flow.


Hmm, OK, wow this sounds very complicated. I always prefer the simpler approaches if I can get away with it. A popular general approach with sumps is one of first, covering or otherwise sealing the sump against gas leakage and then injecting CO2 directly into the sump. A major disadvantage of sumps is that they quickly off-gas CO2 which becomes counter-productive. During the day, when the plants are producing oxygen an aeration chamber is redundant, and uncovered or unsealed sumps will reduce the oxygen being produced.
During the night, this is when aeration is a good thing because the plants are competing with fauna for oxygen. In a sealed sump this can easily be addressed by having an airstone in the sump with the pump on a timer to go on a few hours after lights off when the extra oxygen produced during the day is depleted.
Once this is accomplished, the distribution of return water is made simpler and you can go back to having the bars mounted on the back wall on either side of the overflow box. It's really not a big deal that the box takes up space in the center. The advantage of having the spraybars mounted on the back is that there is a shorter distance to the front glass and it's easier to get the desired flow pattern with this shorter distance.

Cheers,


----------



## Mr.Shenanagins

Looks like your overflow is in the right hand corner, just like my setup. Why not run a spray bar from the left all the way up until the overflow box. That’s how I have mine, and I run a cerges in the sump with the output directed right into my return pump. My sump is not sealed and I do use a solid amount of CO2. My 5lb tanks lasts about 2-3 months depending on how hard I run the co2. Some would think it’s a leak but it’s just what I have to do to get the co2 at the right level with the overflow


----------

