Filter Material Question

[mitten]

Thanks Dick and thanks Arthur. Many things continue to present themselves as things I will be learning, but I am very happy to have learned this one...seperate the poop, flush it, waste no time doing so.

But how would you approach using static K1 in this pond owner's setup? Central to my thinking is the issue of flushing and filling 350 or so gallons a day to remove fines in addition to the flushing of settlement or vortex for solids. Citing back to Maurice...a 24" vortex (60 usg?) a couple cu.ft. of K1 and only 2000gph of flow, flushes every day in a few minutes. How does this translate? I think without proper setup static K1 can lack efficiency and convenience. Because I am unable to build fiberglass vortexes ala Maurice, the design part of this is frustrating.

There was an assumption I had that Xman confirmed, there is more than one transfer 4" pipe between bays. Therefore, flow is not limited by these pipes and Xman can easily go to 9000gph for a twice per hour turnover if there is some nutty reason to do so. Also, the spread of the pipes across the width of the bays will help to keep the water flow full width. After endless enthusistic typing by Mr. Childers I am locked on the number 3000 for 4" passive gravity flow through filter bays without creating excessive draw down in any of them and maintaining enough flow to prevent "casual" sedimentation within the pipes. So, Arthur, excuse me but I will disregard the numbers you've used (not hostily nor hastily) until Steve changes his frequently voiced beliefs and recommendations.

So, if the flow through 1500g of filter bays is 9000gph, is that too fast to allow the dwell time we want our bacteria to have within the filter media? And if this pond can be characterized as "overfiltered" does dwell time really act as a limiting force in any way? I'll voice the opinion again that this ratio of sizes greatly diminishes the consequence of flow rates and media choices, but cannot substitute for effective daily care and maintanence...flushing.

Mickey the windowman

[B.Scott]

Mitten,
I disagree with your asumption about traped fines on static K1 going anerobic. The marvelous thing about static K1 id that besides having many little nooks and crannies to trap fines it still has an amazingly high viod space Trapped fines are never more that a tiny distance from water flowing through the media. Unlke bead filters and the like Static K1 still retains most of it's void space even when fully loaded. Bead filters and sand filters must press the water through the media the offers increasing resistance. It's much like making expresso with fish turds. Static K1 dosen't suffer anywhere near these kind of troubles.

B.Scott

[B.Scott]

Mitten may answer would be to divide the first chamber into two sections with static K1 in the second and a shut off between the inlet and outlet to the chamber. The first chamber could be filled in and made smaller as well... another solution. I'd put a single mat of matella in the first chamber to act as a coarse particle filter to keep the K1 from filling with bits of goob and algae.
BTW 9000 gph in a 4500 gallon pond is a bit over the top unless you are running BH Bakki media IMO.

B.Scott

[xiaohuang7]

Great, so a consistent theme is pre-filters, regardless of the media in the actual filter. Is there a "formula" related to gph flowthru regarding what size to make a settlement tank?

Certainly bigger is better, so is there a desired mid-point or minimum size? I visually approximated that most Niigata breeders using a settlement tank - standpipe/drain setup about 1/8 to 1/10 the size of their cement pond. Is this accurate?

I didn't see any vortexes in use at any of the breeders.... just plain rectangular settlement chambers. Here's a couple of pics, from Ikarashi and Marudo.

[koiczar]

If you look closely at those pics you posted, the settlement chambers are about 1/20th the size of the pond. It all depends on how fast you want to bring the water through it.IMHO and personal experience of building ponds for customers, for 4500gal system, I would have approx. 300 gal settlement chamber and pump approx. 3000gph through the filter system. That would be a tank or cement box of approx. 3.5' x 3.5' x 4'deep. Bring the water in about a third of the way from the bottom and pick it up about 4-6" below the surface to gravity feed the next chamber. One 4" line would suffice for proper flow between chambers. That turns your water over every 1.5 hrs which for this size pond is acceptable.

[mitten]

I was taught the aquaculture guideline that flow through settlement chamber must allow 15 minutes dwell time. Great design can diminish dwell time. Other factors like difference in height between inlet and outlet can affect efficiency. If you use 15 minutes as a criteria then the chamber for 3000gph is 750g and if you area a nut and want to pull 9000gph then the chamber (well designed) would be 2250g. Seems unattainable or at least unlikely.

Doesn't this hold true though? If the settlement chamber is what allows the rest of the filter to become a high performace bio filter, and if the settlement chamber is what creates the possibilty of easily accomplished, thorough, proper, daily maintanence, isn't it the fundemental of the whole system?

I know that when I have built a filter (for myself) that did not take into account proper settlement and discharge I was aiming at a lesser goal from the beginning, something like "it will be good enough."

Mickey the windowman

[schildkoi]

You can actually get more than the 3000 gph. Without the friction loss in 4" piping, its 1" drop for each chamber at about 3700 gph. I like to use the 3000 gph number as being pretty safe. Multiple lines reduce the drop of course between chambers.

With this set up, a number of options exist as far as media and for mechanical filtration as well. Active or passive settlement, seperation or entrapment, ease of operation and maintenance along with costs should all be considered.

First off, Active seperation of solids has the highest benefit. It isn't limited to particulate bouyancy so even floating solids can be seperated. For this reason, a microscreen device would be best suited in the first chamber.

Moving bed media such as heavily aerated K1 in the second chamber would work nicely. Prhaps more pricey than some other options, but will be more efficient and remain cleaner than many other of the options cited.

The third chamber would lend itself nicely to a cartridged matting system (again, heavily aerated) while the forth chamber with a static K1 type media could help with the fines (the larger solids having already been seperated out in the first chamber).

Just my thoughts. I personally do not like the springflow or ribbon type of medias. I'm lazy and I prefer an easier cleaning method.

[Arthur]

An alternative to the microsreen in the first chamber would be to used Matala with a horizontal flow, from wide (black) to tight (gray). Ther should be gaps in between the different tightness of Matala sheets to provide a baffle effect and encourage settlement. The filter should be designed such that if a layer of Matala became plugged, the water overflows it to the next Matala screen and so on. Matala is good for mechanical filtration because it is very very easy to clean: shake the sheets in the water and dump.

[schildkoi]

Along with many other ways. I guess I am lazy though and want an easy, no mess method of cleaning/maintaining my filters. Instead of shaking Matala sheets, I sip a beverage (of choice) while the filters are being cleaned. As you can see, no worry about causing a mess either.

My belief is, "what is easy to do, get's done. What isn't easy to do doesn't, or at least not as often as it should."

Steve

[Arthur]

Lucky you, not everybody can afford an automatic sieve system

I certainly cannot

Thus, I have a 4'/200gal vortex settlement chamber to which I will add static K-1 filtration this year.

I do not use Matala myself but have seen how effective it can be for mechanical filtration. Given the filter design restrictions given at the beginning of the thread, I think Matala is an acceptable alternative.