Home | About Us | Contact Us


Koi Forum - Koi-Bito Magazine straight from Japan
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 66

Thread: vortex size

  1. #51
    bil
    bil is offline
    Tosai
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    44
    Nope, that was so not me. I whip out a crucifix and garlic at the forst mention of gravel in a filter.

  2. #52
    Sansai Vogata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sarpsborg - Norway
    Posts
    154

    Hello all and her comes the fee cells that still functions.

    As always every project top seams too coincide with either spring or fall or what ever season where other Nishikigoi Kichi people her north seeks out help or advice. Must therefore admit that I don’t have the time I would have liked one this board or any other.



    Nice to see that so many still are interstate in the basics. Dear Bekko the removal in “vortex” pond style is normal c-c in bottom when we make them. This is insured just by a smooth (1000-2000 girth) surface and mother nature (gravity) with concave walls all the way too drains. To make design and running cost as low as possible we follow SMG and the sewage plant approach with dwelling time (retention time). Naturally you could do the same a more expensive design and a pressure pump, my best ones bleed constantly off sludge.



    When first opting for fall settlement pleas do not opt for too small footprints. We have gone through this time and time again. If the footprint only is big enough you get a nice patio and bring the water around any pond with minimum pump use. The watts are better used for more circulation and supplemented with water taken from other sources than the bottom drains.
    Tone - Truls -Petter
    Vogata NI

  3. #53
    Oyagoi bekko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Hakipu'u
    Posts
    1,383
    Sorry bil, no offense. I still like the idea of mixed-media filter beds though because they can catch really small stuff and are less prone to caking. Hmm, wonder if you could do that with an assortment of plastics?

    steve hopkins

  4. #54
    Oyagoi bekko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Hakipu'u
    Posts
    1,383
    Vogata, I enjoy your remarks and am curious about the constant discharge of sludge. It seems that if the waste pipe has a valve to adjust a constant flow rate, the small oriface will soon clog. Do you think that an intermittent discharge via an actuator valve and timer might remove more sludge solids with the same amount of water?

    steve hopkins

  5. #55
    bil
    bil is offline
    Tosai
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    44
    I agree that aiming soley at a small footprint is not good, but I make the point that it is possible to get serious solids removal down to fines in a small footprint because that's what a lot of people want.

    This doesn't alter the wattage, as the flow is the same. I will be taking the water from the screens and staticK and pushing it thru a large TT.

    Bekko, sand gravel beds collect the muck in tiny crevices where they are subject to compressive water flow passing thru them, which boosts nitrates and disolved organics, and can lead to tracking.

    In static K, the structure is so open that water isn't forced thru crevices, but flows a tortuous route where the solids and fines are deposited in dead spots while the water flows by.

    Plus, fluidising the K to clean it is easier and more thorough than trying to fluidise sand gravel as the K is neutral to slightly positive buoyancy.

  6. #56
    Sansai Vogata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sarpsborg - Norway
    Posts
    154
    Bekko

    This has for us often been a compromise with flow through construction. Have had some success with this at numbers in 10 kbm against gravity feed (1.3-1 m) to waist and ½” full bore. Ball valves with v-cone are an excellent choice if you would like the opportunity to fin tunes your system. We simply love the 75mm and can easy live with the 50 mm.

    Generally this makes for a superb setup the only downside is running cost. All considerations off build-up of any kind are all gone.



    At our setups we use overflow to waste and electrical valves for purge and refilling all over a normal block timer. The power to filling is routed through a delay timer. After power through the timer cuts and closes the flushing we have an adjustable time left for filling. With a little fine-tuning it’s easy to get it right in our indoor system just by keeping a tab on temperature, level in system an overflow. We use a 75mm ball valve for flushing and have opted on frequent ratter than constantly. (Just a mater off cost)



    Bill when we mentioned power consumption and footprint we where pointing to units easy mounted on a wall. I can lift one (don’t tease now) for 50 tons per hour and the footprint would bee ~450x200x500 with flanges. To get these to function we have had problems without controlled inlet pressure witch mean pressure pumps and valve. Function is as always in regard to price. Her in Norway it’s really high and we have not use this “trough vortex” on any ponds. Its far more normal on process water to chemical plant and so on.

  7. #57
    bil
    bil is offline
    Tosai
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    44
    Hell's teeth! That is small. I was looking at a footprint of 1 sq metre for the screens and static K.

  8. #58
    Sansai Vogata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sarpsborg - Norway
    Posts
    154

    Hello Bill

    Was where you where looking eight years ago. Can’t deny it did work in a way. The real downside was for us cleaning and YAAH daddy did clean al lot. In the summer time we have at worst close to 20 hours off sun (if just the temperature could match but IT don’t).



    At that time we bought stuff for Nishikigoi and by an accident we discovered another Kichi close by. The “gang” from then has been a multitalented artist and a simple engineer. At that point we decided not to trust the things we didn’t understand and started making them so we could understand them and test them.



    We can’t understand that there is any way around mechanical filtration. The ones we understood where expensive and power consuming. AS the small one we reefer to that in fact combine bout quest and utilise gravity by acceleration combined with back flushing at differentials pressure. Back flushing is often by tap water (minimum 6-7 bar) or by its own pressure pump. If the things sometimes claimed where fully described at least one off us here would be out off a job.

    These units are just magnificent. Downside is cost (purchase, maintenance and running). They also require that the owner posses some technical insight.



    Not to advertise but we did by the answer which from at technical point should have some potential. We have had to sets up and running for a year now. No problems and the report off damage one the mechanical parts we have heard must bee do to handling. The next one or our test set-ups now is the solution. If the mechanical handcraft is up to standard and they are one advertising spot on the microns it should also be nice with added benefit on power consumption.

    If you feel that these are expensive please don’t look for the small footprint vortex.



    Back to the “vortex” discussed. We found that the surface we wanted was easiest obtained with glass fibre and a really nice gelcoat finish. The walls are all falling towards drain. Distance between drain and inlet is related to inlet speed, as is the distance to outlet.

    Outlet should not be located in the area where you wish to take out solids. Water out should be drawn equally from all sides off the “vortex action”. The aim is to force inlet water to go the long way around the walls for as long as possible.

    After reading this it boils downs to speed-diameter-height and location off disturbance.



    Good luck we are one our way and hopefully we will bee satisfied with the last prototype but you never know.

  9. #59
    bil
    bil is offline
    Tosai
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    44
    To the best of my knowledge, there is no such thing as a small footprint vortex.

    There are only two classes of solids remover, settlement or capture. Settlement takes it out the flow, but is inefficient, letting the particles thru that are the similar density to water.

    Capture is the best, but it keeps it in the flow. By using a screen as the primary remover, most is removed, and by the water flow pushing it away, contact withe the flow is reduced.

    By using static K as the fines removal, you get the fines settling in the dead spots which stops the water forcing it into crevices and dissolving out the organics.

  10. #60
    Sansai Vogata's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sarpsborg - Norway
    Posts
    154

    Dear Bill – tanks for pointing it out

    Well believe it or not we actually like being corrected. After reading to our one rambling we see where it fall apart. We aimed too comment on the coupling made earlier in this tread about separation through acceleration or/and gravity.



    As for Vortex:

    vortex

    /vorteks/

    • noun (pl. vortexes or vortices /vortiseez/) a whirling mass, especially a whirlpool or whirlwind.

    Is it a brand name? We cross the principal off rotating mass all the time and also in the small unit described it’s often used.



    Back to the point addressed. The smaller units really make good use off the differential weight. Last time I had my hand on one was as last stage before reintroducing heated water in paper production. These units often incorporate mechanical strainers off some sort and utilises backpressure to time back flushing. With pairing we have no problem holding water feed continues and particle is a mater off components.



    For Nishikigoi ponds we have found better function in gravity (in normal budgets). Have had better experience with mechanical removal after first letting on “vortex” cycle have a go on the water. In any case we always make this part easy accessible for heavy flush (75mm +) and cleaning action. It’s also easily to take out off flow and not in the total biomass calculation (conception).

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Continuous Filtration System: Size? vs Pond Size
    By KoiKisses in forum Pond Construction
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-23-2009, 05:50 PM
  2. vortex chambers
    By glupo in forum Pond Construction
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-28-2009, 07:20 PM
  3. Vortex Maintenance
    By Akai-San in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-13-2004, 12:12 AM
  4. vortex size
    By simon in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 11-08-2004, 08:00 AM
  5. UV in the 1st vortex
    By kiky in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-22-2004, 06:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Articles - Sitemap - FAQs and Rules

KB Footer Graphic
Straight from Japan... For the serious hobbyist!
All content and images copyright of: Koi-bito.com