Low-Head Shower?

[kingkong]

Quote: Originally Posted by bekko JG, I suspect that the amont of BH media the water flows over on every pass has something to do with the filter's efficiency. If you make long, low BS trays (like only one tray high), then the water will flow over less media with every pass. Instead of flowing through 3-4 trays of media with every pass, it only flows over one tray with every pass. Thus, to have the water make contact with the media as frequently, the water flow rate through the low, single-tray would have to be higher than it would through a rack of 3-4 trays stacked on top of each other. Seems like the water flow and pumping rate would have to be 3-4 times higher, doesn't it? -s teve hopkins

Lets say you have a 100 ton pond with 10 adult koi that require 1 cubic yard (46,656 cubic inches) of "bacteria house" media to do the job according to Mr. Maeda's specs just for example. The surface area of one large chamber tray that holds 1 cubic yard would be the same as 6 smaller chamber trays holding 1 cubic yard of BH. Water volume would be equal or probably more entering the large chamber since it is lower and requires less head effort by pump. The problem may be designing the drip plate to distribute the water evenly but should be possible .

[junglegeorge12]

steve's thinking was correct kong. He just did not take into account the prop pump usage now being an option. Also, it takes less energy to pump twice the volume half the head height than it does to pump half the volume twice the height. If you look at any pump performance chart it is on a curve, not a straight line. You will probably see a 20-30% reduction in power consumption with the type of pumps doing twice the volume at half the head. However if designed properly with prop pumps, you should be able to use smaller pumps with even more volume at a lower head and lower rla, resulting in even more savings on both pumps and energy consumption. If a pump burns it will burn your pocket less too. So long term, it is a much better solution.

Even with conventional pumps this would save energy and lengthen pump life dramatically. The only drawback is the reality that more media will be preferred, although not required in many applications. Just put the pump savings into more media. Use the power savings to buy more media and koi over time, or to go see the in-laws, or even go to Japan! Since even with the same tray length and width, you will be passing more frequently, so more media may not be nescessary. The increased level of oxygen in the drain line will probably also enhance the media's performance and result in better strains of bacteria growth enhancement. Maybe JR could comment on that.

[junglegeorge12]

Also, since you have over twice the volume, a drip plate or spray bar will distribute more easily and clog less. The head resting on the holes in the spray bar or drip plate will probably be slightly higher than conventional showers, so you will also see an increased spray force resulting in better oxygenation at the top of the shower too. Even though the main prop pumps lines will move more gently, the spray bar will have more force and head to work with so it will be less gentle there. My opinion just observing my shower is that the highest percentage of the oxygenation is taking place on the first strike of water on media. It has more force behind it. So with a stronger strike force, you have a better oxygenation generation right at the beginning of filtration. Great spot for that to happen.


I would like to know more about the air injection nozzles Papa Bear brought up. How do they work? How much energy do the pumps that run small ones use? Where can we find those online to check out their stats?

[PapaBear]

Quote: Originally Posted by junglegeorge12 Also, since you have over twice the volume, a drip plate or spray bar will distribute more easily and clog less. The head resting on the holes in the spray bar or drip plate will probably be slightly higher than conventional showers, so you will also see an increased spray force resulting in better oxygenation at the top of the shower too. Even though the main prop pumps lines will move more gently, the spray bar will have more force and head to work with so it will be less gentle there. My opinion just observing my shower is that the highest percentage of the oxygenation is taking place on the first strike of water on media. It has more force behind it. So with a stronger strike force, you have a better oxygenation generation right at the beginning of filtration. Great spot for that to happen. I would like to know more about the air injection nozzles Papa Bear brought up. How do they work? How much energy do the pumps that run small ones use? Where can we find those online to check out their stats?

As far as I know they aren't available online as they are of my fathers own design. I'm putting a small scale model together and will post pics soon. Wonderfully simple and none of the head loss experienced with venturi systems so pump utility costs are unaffected.

[Bancherd]

Quote: Originally Posted by PapaBear As far as I know they aren't available online as they are of my fathers own design. I'm putting a small scale model together and will post pics soon. Wonderfully simple and none of the head loss experienced with venturi systems so pump utility costs are unaffected.

I'd like to see your design as well . I am injecting water via a 2" PVC pipe located ~ 1 cm. above water surface pointing straight down. Not very elegance.

[luke frisbee]

Quote: Originally Posted by junglegeorge12 Why not just build shorter, longer showers to reduce head and power consumption? That cascade might make a good return from the bottom of the shower to the pond.

that is the idea behind my "pond". I've thought of having bread trays four deep and five long. It wouldn't need to be higher than three feet

[bekko]

I buy all of that JG. Well...., everything except the pond monitoring /control system. Been there and found it to be a technological insult.

-steve

[junglegeorge12]

Steve,

I would like to know what your bad experience with the monitoring system was and how it was supposed to work vs. what you got. I have 20+ yrs of experience in controls designs and have come up with a pretty good pond solution. As many details as you can share with me would help me to make sure we avoid the bad experience you had.

It is also an early warning system that can email or call your cell phone with different warning levels if something happens, like happened to Jules with his heater getting stuck on, or a sudden leak or water level drop anywhere in the system, or pump stops, or loss of water flow, or predators show up to accost your koi or your wife.

papa Bear, how do those thing work? where do they sit and what are they made up of?

[PapaBear]

Quote: Originally Posted by junglegeorge12 Steve, ...papa Bear, how do those thing work? where do they sit and what are they made up of?

Painfully simple little draft system that goes directly in the pump discharge. I'll post a picture of the little one I've made as soon as my wife gets back with the digicam. She has a bunch of her students on a retreat this weekend. It works on exactly the same principle as a venturi only without any restrictions. Dirt cheap DIY type project. The original (4" discharge pump) is used in 250,000 gal effluent ponds. I'm thinking it would be excellent as a bottom feed for submerged media as well.

[bekko]

George, this was 15 years ago in a more industrial setting. The intent was to collect more data than we had the man-power to collect by hand. We set up oxygen, temperature, pH, and aerator function monitoring in one bank of ponds. It was a different time, much more biologically-active systems than a typical koi pond, and different logistical constraints. The military had not yet released the good wireless technology for domestic use and everything was hard-wired. Probes fouled despite having an automated cleaning cycle and chlorine reservoir, boards corroded in the humid environment, the transmission wiring (probably a half-mile all together) acted like a hugh antenna which would fry everything whenever there was a lightening strike in the same county, the dialer would wake me up in the middle of the night at least once each week for a false alarm, etc.

We were able to cobble together the data stream we wanted and it eventually served its purpose. But, in the end, it was not the technical glitches which turned me off from using it as a daily management tool. I found that simply observing a pond while driving by generated much more meaningful information when it came to making management decisions. Numbers don't lie (at least when the equipment operates the way it is supposed to) but numbers miss the subtile nuances which the eye picks up immediately. Fish keeping is a combination of science and art. Remote monitoring is good at adressing the science side of things, but does not help much in applying the art. Remote monitoring may be able to tell you the water quality is good, the equipment is running exactly the was it should, the system is being fed the correct amount, etc., but it may miss the fact that there is a dead fish floating in the corner and another with a huge ulcer.

Today, I am semi-retired and my approach is becoming even more holistic, and less atomistic, than is was before. I hardly ever measure or record anything, hardly ever use chemicals, make much of my own food stuffs, and rely almost entirely on instinct and observation. More art, less science, the zen of fish keeping.

This is a personal preference though and I do not want to give the impression that remote monitoring is inherently bad or that it can not be an effective tool. If gadgetry and technological fish keeping is what you want to do, then go for it. There are lots of different approaches to the same end and each individual should find the path that suits them.

-steve hop kins