• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up

14 foot Planted Tank ................ is it possible ?????

Re: 14 foot Planted Tank ................ is it possible ??

Garuf said:
I'd vote you need many many more filters than just 4 fx5's.
Click to expand...

For the cost of 3-4 FX5s you might as well go systemised with a sump. Pressurised pond filters may also be something worth looking into, just because its made for a pond doesnt mean it cant be used in an aqarium and vice versa (You would be suprised how many people think otherwise.)

ceg4048 said:
Hi,
It's not that "plant keepers" eschew the use of sumps. Instead it's necessary that they understand what the disadvantages of sumps are, and to address the weaknesses.

Specifically, sumps tend to drive off CO2 because typically they are open to atmosphere and typically there is a lot of splashing going on inside the sump. This merely means that more CO2 needs to injected to compensate for the CO2 lost due to out gassing. The water volume held by the sump must also be taken into account when calculating the nutrient dosage.

If the sump can be sealed against atmospheric loss and if the internal pathways can be made less turbulent - and if the water volume is accounted for in nutrient dosage calculation, then the advantages of the sump are that higher turnovers can be achieved without the need for extra filters. So there is no inherent reason to avoid sumps if these weaknesses can be addressed.

Cheers,
Click to expand...

It is easy enough to avoid splashing within a sump if designed correctly, also if there is a problem with the sump being open to the atmosphere and CO2 being lost that way, why do people keep open top tanks? All it takes is a peice of acrylic on the top... Job done!
 
Re: 14 foot Planted Tank ................ is it possible ??

ceg4048 said:
Hi,
It's not that "plant keepers" eschew the use of sumps. Instead it's necessary that they understand what the disadvantages of sumps are, and to address the weaknesses.

Specifically, sumps tend to drive off CO2 because typically they are open to atmosphere and typically there is a lot of splashing going on inside the sump. This merely means that more CO2 needs to injected to compensate for the CO2 lost due to out gassing. The water volume held by the sump must also be taken into account when calculating the nutrient dosage.

If the sump can be sealed against atmospheric loss and if the internal pathways can be made less turbulent - and if the water volume is accounted for in nutrient dosage calculation, then the advantages of the sump are that higher turnovers can be achieved without the need for extra filters. So there is no inherent reason to avoid sumps if these weaknesses can be addressed.

Cheers,

Mowze said:
It is easy enough to avoid splashing within a sump if designed correctly, also if there is a problem with the sump being open to the atmosphere and CO2 being lost that way, why do people keep open top tanks? All it takes is a peice of acrylic on the top... Job done!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Hi,
My point was that most sumps aren't designed with the minimization of splashing in mind, just the opposite because splashing sumps increases the O2 exchange and so this is a good thing in non-planted tanks. For a planted CO2 injected tank this is a source of potential problems if one is not aware of it. Splashing in an unsealed sump drives off CO2 in the same way one might shake up a coke bottle and release the cap. So this is a bad combination that depletes the CO2 unnecessarily. In a 14 foot tank this becomes an economic impediment.

People keep open top tanks because for various reasons, such as aesthetics, economics (non-standard tank dimensions and the cost of a hood to fit those dimensions) or for practicality due to configuration issues, tank in-situ installation problems or for ease of maintenance. They rarely, if ever, do it simply because they disbelieve or want to disprove the theory of CO2 loss at the surface. Nevertheless, open top tanks tend to have a greater CO2 loss than if they were covered, and so this has to be compensated for by having a higher injection rate than they might otherwise need if they were covered. Again, this is not an impossible situation, merely something that ought to be accounted for when designing or implementing a tank configuration.

In CO2 injected tanks, a standard technique for minimizing CO2 loss at the surface is to avoid splashing at the surface. Orient the filter return so as not to break the surface, but to merely have the surface ripple. If there are bubbles or breakage of the surface this accelerates CO2 evaporation in exactly the same way as discussed in the sump.

Cheers,
 
Re: 14 foot Planted Tank ................ is it possible ??

Yes, that is correct. However again, my point is that the designer must be aware of the issues/limitation involved with the tank being used for plants and must therefore incorporate solutions to these issues as a set of basic parameters of the sump design.

Now that the OP is aware of the unique issues and limitations, I'm sure the sump will incorporate these plant specific design features instead of a fish-only conventional design. :thumbup:

Cheers,
 
Re: 14 foot Planted Tank ................ is it possible ??

hellohefalump said:
Are you going to be using CO2? If you are, I would definately go down the fire extinguisher route (cheaper)
Click to expand...
Big fire extinguisher 😵
A 25kg bottle may be more appropriate from one of the major gas suppliers like BOC, on a tank that size 😉
 
Re: 14 foot Planted Tank ................ is it possible ??

Some cabinet to get a bottle in of that size :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:



Stu.
 
Re: 14 foot Planted Tank ................ is it possible ??

yeah that would be a pretty big cabinet unless the bottle is wider than usual
 
Re: 14 foot Planted Tank ................ is it possible ??

has anyone ever done any CO2 measurements in sump setups?

let say, for the sake of argument, that water when gone through the sump and returned had all its CO2 taken out, this would undoubtedly mean that we have to use more CO2 to replenish the lose to maintain the level in the main tank, but I haven't done any experiments on this and I'm wondering if anyone has. There is an article of people using trickle filters for planted tanks, but they cover up their filters so I suppose any CO2 getting splashed about stays enclosed and gets reabsorbed again by the water?

I am seriously thinking of setting up a 3 - 4 metre planted tank some time in the future (when I move house), and for that size, sumps are the only option I see. I will NOT use large canisters, but I want to experiment first and was hoping someone else took the plunge before me to give some feedback.

As far as I see it I want to adopt what Amano does on his super large tank except:

1) I will be using trickle towers, and they will be aerated so probably all CO2 will be gassed. This is to ensure the biological tower works at its optimal efficiency. The bio towers are totally maintenance free.

2) the prefilter/siphon box will incorporate filter floss so water is fine filtered before it even hits the bio tower. This alone is what makes the sump arrangement worth it, since it is open to a quick change whereas using canisters filters it's extremely cumbersome to get to.

3) dosing inputs can be done into the sump and not into the tanks, which is neater

4) same for heating or whatever water treatment you might want to do

5) return via Deltec HLP pumps, totally silent, and I'll probably use a Mazzei jet unless someone else has a better suggestion

6) water changes can be easily implemented and made automatic if required

I love sump set ups, despite the drawbacks of CO2 degassing and the vast space required along with the need to properly engineer the siphon box right.
 
Re: 14 foot Planted Tank ................ is it possible ??

I am running a sump in my tank.
The system will be up and running at the end of the month all planted out.
I have a fair bit of air coming down my standpipes so that will be driving the Co2 off but I am happy with that for the bio stages. I think if you run weirs in the tank you will not avoid this problem
Its a 800 ltr system in all so we shall see how much Co2 it uses. At the moment its got 1 6.25 kg bottle to supply it. I may need to increase this dependant on how long it lasts. I am also injecting at one point ,but that is the input to the return pump which is an Aquamax 10000 returning through a full length 40mm spay bar . We will see how it gets on.
I was thinking of putting a drop checker in my last bio stage just to see if there is any co2 present at that point but I am not to hopeful.
I would love to run trickle towers as I use them on my outside set up and are totally maintenance free if I had the room.

Simon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top