Polygeyser vs Alpha 1 and Pump recommendations

[mitten]

Cyber Space 2000-

If the wife is a keeper it would be courteous to provide pics. If you have a series of pics outlining her developement seasonally...even better!

To maximize depth you can go deeper or you can add height to the walls to bring the water level above grade. Is your NorCal climate harsh or mild? If harsh the raised walls are less desirable.

Filter size ratio is quoted as 1 in 5 or 1 in 4 or maybe 1 in 3 when using gravity fed chambers. Get as much as you can, but as an American in a mild climate, not growing Champs, aiming for 20% of pond surface and or volume in filter capacity should get you wjhjere you want to be. Modern methods and materials do distort the computation of these areas and quantities, usually to the good, I say, but there are no magic potions or miracle filters.

Picture this CBRS2K. pond walls raised 19 1/2 inches (half a meter or one cubit). Likewise the settlement chambers. And across the back, a full meter above grade (oh heck, just make it 36 inches) the filter chambers, up, down, up, out as a waterfall. Pump location would be between settlement and bio chambers. The spill from the last chamber on each side could be fed to the same decorative au naturale waterfall or spill as sheets or spouts if that is your preference. Aerated Matala would be one choice for bio material for the first chambers. A fluid bed would be a good choice for the second chambers.

Your concern about maintanence is proper and will serve you well. Knowing about aquariums or sticking your face in aquarium lit will not help though. Your notion of coaxing poop to the drain is a hoot. Likewise the idea of a partial cleanup. Because of this your design needs to be segmented (the chambers!) with seperate functions for each, and the abilty to shut a chamber down for cleanout. I have not tackled the plumbing needed to be able to shut down a single chamber while the rest of the system runs full speed, but I'm sure it is done by someone. A procedure that is- shut down pump (half the system, left or right, in your pond drawing), drain a single chamber, flushing it to waste, and then washing that chamber down if neccessary before restarting pump- would be a desirable technique for filter maintanence.

Water changes are your other regular maintanence requirement. Your routine will exchange 10-50% of the water weekly. Most folks have a daily routine of turning valves and a weekly routine of dumping a chamber or two or three to accomplish there own goals of water changing. Supplying suitable water to your pond, in large quantities will take thought also. Water top off systems with backups are gifts from some benevolent water god. If you have city water then pretreatment will be neccessary for it to be added.

You will find that 10-15 minutes a day and a half hour to an hour on a weekend should do it. Others will suggest adult beverages to occupy the rest of the time you spend by the pond. You may use it as you wish.

Aerated bottom drains and skimmers have not been covered...yet. Good luck planning. If you have the ability to do drawings, that's great, they are very helpful. But I could not get that last one to display in a version that I could read, not even with my magnifying glass. Why is it on my desk? And why did my keeper say "Now, shut up" when she handed it to me?

[CBRS2K]

Hi Mitten,

Actually, what you propose is exactly what I have in mind. Sorry for the poor quality of the layout drawing. I didn't know that it would be compressed to that extent. However, there should be some text (perhaps unreadable, due to the compression) indicating that the pond is semi-raised. I am proposing the pond wall to be about 18" above the ground, with a fill level at about 15" or 16". The design is more of a "formal" pond, with sheet type falls, approx 10" above pond level.

I was trying to integrate the filtration into the pond design, or at least keep it as close as possible to improve overall efficiency. In my original plan, I had the filter bays protruding into the pond about 3' (behind a wall). Primary filtration would have been a bank of TTs. Unfortunately, due to the limited width of the pond, while it looked "O.K. on paper", it just didn't look right when I layed out the outline in the yard.

My fall back design (the one illustrated) was to pull the filter bay off to the side of the pond. This would put some distance between the output of the filter and the pool wells to the falls, I didn't think that I would be able to effectively gravity feed the falls from the TTs, given the high rate of flow. I wanted to make sure that I could keep as much of the TT media exposed to air, without having to resort to placing air stones in them and not risk overflowing the TTs due to poor/restricted flows to the falls. Since I am not a fluid dynamics expert, and didn't have access to the formulas required to project piping and flow capabilities, I opted for a pressurized filter system. I was "guessing" that a 4" pipe feeding the main fall and 3" pipes feeding the aux. falls would be sufficient. However, with a standard flow of around 4k to 5K gals/hour to the main fall and aux falls respectively, with the potential of doubling it, if I shut down the feed to one system and diverting the flow to the other, I didn't want to bank on my "guess" being right.

On a previous posting, I was toying with the idea of moving, or rather adding, a filter bay back to the back side of the pond, cantilevered from the top of the pond wall. This would allow me to put TTs back into the system design (albeit fewer than originally planned). This alternative would seem to give me the best of both worlds: full gravity feed systems with integrated TTs without impinging on pond volume, or blocking access pathways/setbacks. The only thing that would prevent me from moving in this direction would be cost. I have no idea what it would cost to make this alternative structurally sound. If too much, I'll have to either fall back to a pressurized system, or try to see if I can support sufficient gravity flows from the remote filter bay to the fall wells.

As for filter sizing, I'm still a little confused. I'm not sure if I want to use pond surface area as a key for determining filter sizing requirements, as in this case, depending on the depth that I choose to build to, my pond could be 40% to 50% larger by volume, without growing in surface area. Is there some sort of calculation that I can use based on either pond volume, or stocking level and/or fish size?

I am currently waffling on aerated bottom drains. I think that they are a good idea, and had originally had, and still have, them included in my design. However, I am starting to read that they do clog, over time. I am concerned about having to replace the aeration unit, when they clog. More so, now that I am considering a deeper pond design. I am toying with the idea of moving the aeration into the submerged filtration bay. Between the aeration that occurs within the submerged filters, augmented by the TTs and finally the falls, I'm thinking/hoping that the water returning to the pond, via the falls, would be super aerated, eliminating the need for additional aeration in the pond. I do realize that there are additional benefits to having an aerated BD (e.g. providing additional draw to the BD) and wonder if not having this out weighs the issue of having to replace the areators every few (couple?) years.

I am also planning on incorporating jets. A question that I would have would be flush mount/TPR or eductor type. I like the fact that the eductor type provides much more flow, but wonder if I need to concern myself with fish injuring themselves on them, especially during spawning season. Or, if the koi just get used to the fact that they are there and simply swim around them, after a while.

I never knew planning for and building a pond would be so complicated. But I'm certainly having fun learning.

[koiczar]

[quote=CBRS2K;81013]Hi Koiczar, MoiKoi, Mitten and Mynamy1,

Up until now, much of the people that I have talked to had indicated that 3' to 4' would be a minimum depth for koi, with deeper being preferable for higher stocking capacity. Some had also indicated that much beyond 5' and visibility (water clarity) starts to become an issue.

Don't consider the depth angle for "higher stocking density". It is for better quality of the system. Low stocking density is still very important. The depth is much better for the fish. As Moikoi has shown, deeper can still be very clear!

You all have provided me with sufficient information to reconsider my targetted depth specification.

Due to physical limitations, 7.5' is as wide as this pond can be and provide "adequate" access (about a 3' walkway) around the pond. If I push the average depth to about 5.5', using the same pond outline, I calculate the main pond volume to be just under 8000 gals. Adding the SC wings would bring pond volume to about 9000 gals (even though fish would not have access to this last 1000 gals).
That's a nice size pond! For the growth you would like to achieve, I would recommend no more than 10 female koi, OR 15 or so male koi. This size width will aid in allowing you to catch your fish when necessary.

When it comes to bio filtration I know that more is usually better. If I can not figure out how to make a gravity feed system work (given space and cost limitations), the pressurized units that I was considering seemed sufficiently sized to cover this larger capacity.

What makes you think it would cost more to do the gravity fed system vs pressurized filter units?

However, I would like to understand some "targets" to shoot for when designing a gravity system. Since space will be a premium, I would like to understand the minimum requirements to determine if this is an option that I can even consider.

In a pure gravity system, the SC's would still be in place; perhaps using black and green matala (as described above) to handle primary mechanical filtration. Secondary mechanical filtration and initial bio filtration would be accomplished via submerged matala filter bins, which would feed the pumps leading to the TTs.

If you set your system up as gravity to pump to SHOWERS (NOT TTs), you could get away with a settling chamber and mechanical chamber, then pump through the UV light and THEN to the shower units. I would have 1 set of showers on each system. You could certainly feed that 6' wide waterfall you were talking about having.

I am wondering how large the submerged and TT systems should should be(total sq. ft. of surface area in each catagory). If another measurement of sizing is better, I'd be interested in knowing what it is.

I would recommend making your shower units 5 bins high. Each bin measures 48"L x 12"W x 11"D. They self-support stack so it's very easy to make them. Two separate sets, side by side would work great for your design.

Koiczar,

You mentioned the use of UV. If I can pull this alternate design off, the TT's would directly feed the falls; basically fall into the fall pool. Where would be the optimal placement of the UVs? If before the TTs, I'm worried that this would hinder the development of beneficial bacteria in the TTs.
Not at all! The bacteria that colonize your showers won't be affected by a preceeding U V light unit.

If after the TTs, I'm worried about space availability. One option for after the TT could be to place a "standard" UV fixture just over the fall collection pool (as this would be behind a wall) and place a mirror above and to the sides of the fixture to concentrate the light shining down into the pool. This could have the side benefit of providing additional exposure time to the UV radiation, as the water would be exposed to the UV while it was still in the fall pool, as opposed to the limited exposure flowing through the UV pipe housing. I know that the commerial set up increases intensity, due to proximity of water to the light source. I am wondering at what distance does the UV exposure start to significantly diminish.

I'm not sure, but I don't think this type of set-up is legal in this country due to the proximity to the water!! Water and Electricity don't mix well!!LOL Although, the Japanese use something of this type but they're more of an oversized aquarium hood and they place it over their settling chamber. Their philosophy is that the waste is already starting to break down by the time it reaches the SC, therefore that's the best place to disinfect the water.
Again, thank you all for your time, consideration and expertise.[/quote

You're welcome

Mike

[CBRS2K]

[quote=koiczar;81101]

Quote: Originally Posted by CBRS2K Up until now, much of the people that I have talked to had indicated that 3' to 4' would be a minimum depth for koi, with deeper being preferable for higher stocking capacity. Some had also indicated that much beyond 5' and visibility (water clarity) starts to become an issue. Don't consider the depth angle for "higher stocking density". It is for better quality of the system. Low stocking density is still very important. The depth is much better for the fish. As Moikoi has shown, deeper can still be very clear! My bad, I meant stocking capacity, not density. Sorry for the confusion. When it comes to bio filtration I know that more is usually better. If I can not figure out how to make a gravity feed system work (given space and cost limitations), the pressurized units that I was considering seemed sufficiently sized to cover this larger capacity. What makes you think it would cost more to do the gravity fed system vs pressurized filter units? The reason that, in my case, gravity fed "could" be more expensive than a pressurized unit is not because of the cost difference between the units themselves, but rather what I would have to do to "structurally" accomodate the gravity set up that I was thinking of, to address my space issues and lack of understanding/comfort level with gravity flow rates from a remote location (given an estimated flow rate of up to 9000 gph). As such, I was thinking of cantilevering the showers above the back side of the pond. I want to make this set up both structurally sound and "decent" to look at. I have some ideas as to "what" I want to do, just no idea how much this is going to cost me. However, I would like to understand some "targets" to shoot for when designing a gravity system. Since space will be a premium, I would like to understand the minimum requirements to determine if this is an option that I can even consider. In a pure gravity system, the SC's would still be in place; perhaps using black and green matala (as described above) to handle primary mechanical filtration. Secondary mechanical filtration and initial bio filtration would be accomplished via submerged matala filter bins, which would feed the pumps leading to the TTs. If you set your system up as gravity to pump to SHOWERS (NOT TTs), you could get away with a settling chamber and mechanical chamber, then pump through the UV light and THEN to the shower units. I would have 1 set of showers on each system. You could certainly feed that 6' wide waterfall you were talking about having. I am wondering how large the submerged and TT systems should should be(total sq. ft. of surface area in each catagory). If another measurement of sizing is better, I'd be interested in knowing what it is. I would recommend making your shower units 5 bins high. Each bin measures 48"L x 12"W x 11"D. They self-support stack so it's very easy to make them. Two separate sets, side by side would work great for your design. 5 bins high would be problematic, for the set up that I am thinking about, since this would put the top 1 or 2 bins above the fence line (a no-no according to the HOA). I don't know if I can double the width of the system, but I might be able to add about 50% to the width with a 3 bin high set up. This would flow through approx the same, if not more media (if I can figure out a way to go 4 bins high), but less height. Would I be losing much efficiency, relative to these two systems? Koiczar, You mentioned the use of UV. If I can pull this alternate design off, the TT's would directly feed the falls; basically fall into the fall pool. Where would be the optimal placement of the UVs? If before the TTs, I'm worried that this would hinder the development of beneficial bacteria in the TTs. Not at all! The bacteria that colonize your showers won't be affected by a preceeding U V light unit. Hmm, interesting. I thought that the bacteria required to colonize the showers would come from the feed water. If the UV kills them all before the showers, what would be left to colonize the media? If after the TTs, I'm worried about space availability. One option for after the TT could be to place a "standard" UV fixture just over the fall collection pool (as this would be behind a wall) and place a mirror above and to the sides of the fixture to concentrate the light shining down into the pool. This could have the side benefit of providing additional exposure time to the UV radiation, as the water would be exposed to the UV while it was still in the fall pool, as opposed to the limited exposure flowing through the UV pipe housing. I know that the commerial set up increases intensity, due to proximity of water to the light source. I am wondering at what distance does the UV exposure start to significantly diminish. I'm not sure, but I don't think this type of set-up is legal in this country due to the proximity to the water!! Water and Electricity don't mix well!!LOL Good point. Although, the Japanese use something of this type but they're more of an oversized aquarium hood and they place it over their settling chamber. Their philosophy is that the waste is already starting to break down by the time it reaches the SC, therefore that's the best place to disinfect the water. Again, thank you all for your time, consideration and expertise.[/quote You're welcome Mike

If all goes well, looks like I'm getting a lot closer to a design that I can lock down on.

Thanks Again,

Steve

[mynamy1]

Koizar, is the plastic bin (48" x 15" x 11") from US Plastics with the trade name of STAKPAK? Their pictures were posted here sometimes last year? If that is true then those bin must be protected from sunlight as the material is not UV-resistance. MA. Le

StakPak CrossPak™ System - US Plastic Corporation

[koiczar]

Quote: Originally Posted by mynamy1 Koizar, is the plastic bin (48" x 15" x 11") from US Plastics with the trade name of STAKPAK? Their pictures were posted here sometimes last year? If that is true then those bin must be protected from sunlight as the material is not UV-resistance. MA. Le StakPak CrossPak™ System - US Plastic Corporation

MA Le

Yes, those are the bins I mentioned. Not UV resistant? I hadn't heard that. A dealer friend has them installed on his ponds and they've been running now for a little less than a year. Will have to mention it to him in case he is not aware.

Thanks.

CBRS2K

The bacteria actually feed on the ammonia and nitrite that is delivered to the showers. They will colonize the media within the showers. Of course, they colonize just about everything within a system including your plumbing. You mention debating over using the aerated bottom drains. My suggestion is DON'T DEBATE!! Install them. I have heard what you mentioned about breaking down. Maybe someone who has had that experience can shed some light on a timeline? There is a new bottom drain on the market that is the best design I've seen so far. It's called the "koi toilet" and is available at: fancykoioutlet.com. As the water warms it is less capable of holding as much DO. You want your system to be operating at at least 80% of saturation if not more. The fish need more during the summer period as they try to assimilate the food given and for osmoregulation. It's more important than the average hobbyist realizes!

Mike

[mynamy1]

Koizar, when Henry C posted his home-made bakki with the StakPak bins I searched the net and never got the UV-resistant issue resolved. It take a call and an email to the technical support dept to confirm what was stated earlier.

CBRS2K, in some earlier post you want to use Matala as mechanical for the bead filter. This practice is undesirable as biomedia (Matala) is used as mechanical in front of the bio-inferior mechanical filter (bead), get my drift?

Air dome BD's main advantage is its sweeping current to move the waste into the drain itself. The incorporate of TT to outgas the potential negative effect of air injection at pressure (at pond BD level) is desireable among other benefits. MA. Le

[CBRS2K]

Quote: Originally Posted by koiczar The bacteria actually feed on the ammonia and nitrite that is delivered to the showers. They will colonize the media within the showers. Of course, they colonize just about everything within a system including your plumbing. I thought that the beneficial bacteria would colonize via the feed from the pond. However, based on what you are stating (above), it would seem that the bacteria is air bourne, therefore placing a sterilizing agent (UV) prior to the showers would have no effect on the speed of bacteria colonization in the showers. Thanks for the clarification. You mention debating over using the aerated bottom drains. My suggestion is DON'T DEBATE!! Install them. I have heard what you mentioned about breaking down. Maybe someone who has had that experience can shed some light on a timeline? There is a new bottom drain on the market that is the best design I've seen so far. It's called the "koi toilet" and is available at: fancykoioutlet.com. As the water warms it is less capable of holding as much DO. You want your system to be operating at at least 80% of saturation if not more. The fish need more during the summer period as they try to assimilate the food given and for osmoregulation. It's more important than the average hobbyist realizes! In my debate, I am leaning towards installing them. If low maintenance, I like what they have to offer. However, I am concerned about potential maintenance requirements. I wouldn't want to find out that I need to replace the aerator every year or two; especially since my pond design just got a little deeper ). Mike

I'm back in the US, just got back last night, and will need to travel to the bay area in two weeks. The store that you sight (above) seems to be in the South Bay area. I will need to travel to Cupertino in a couple of weeks. I'll try to stop by the store to get a closer look at the unit to see if my maintenance concerns are warranted. If not, great, they're in. If so, perhaps some tweaking to the design of a non-aerated unit, to provide for a more easily maintainable unit is in order.

[CBRS2K]

Quote: Originally Posted by mynamy1 CBRS2K, in some earlier post you want to use Matala as mechanical for the bead filter. This practice is undesirable as biomedia (Matala) is used as mechanical in front of the bio-inferior mechanical filter (bead), get my drift? Air dome BD's main advantage is its sweeping current to move the waste into the drain itself. The incorporate of TT to outgas the potential negative effect of air injection at pressure (at pond BD level) is desireable among other benefits. MA. Le

Hi mynamy,

Regarding the Matala set up. I think I understand your point. The reason that I wanted to put some Matala ahead of the bead filter was to do some extra mechanical filtration before the water entered the bead filter. This was an attempt to stretch out the time between backflushes. Since I sometimes have to travel for extended periods, I wanted to see if I could trap more of the solids that would tend to clog a pressurized filter, before it entered the filter. Since the SC had a larger capacity to hold detrius, pre-filtering in the SC seemed to be a reasonable compromise.

However, if I can figure out how to make a pure gravity system work (from a cost and asthetics standpoint), there would no longer be a need for the pressure unit.

As for the BD, I'm not quite sure that I understand you point. Are you saying that having air injected "at pressure" somehow has a negative effect on water quality that the TTs/showers compensate for? Can you further explain your point? Here is my understanding of the pros and cons of what an aerated BD provides:

• Pros:
  • Adds additional air content to the water
  • Provides additional "flow" to the BD and increases overall pond circulation (bottom to top), due to the water being displaced upwards by the injected air
  • Fish sometimes like to swim in the bubbles
• Cons:
  • Pond circulation (Second "Pro" bullet) becomes a "Con" if aeration is not shut down during the winter months, as this would eliminate the natural thermalcline (sp?) that would occur to insulate the fish from further cooling effects due to weather conditions.
  • May need to be shut down when "showing" the pond/fish as the bubbles can hinder visibility to the fish
  • Could be a maintenance issue, as (any?) aeration unit will tend to clog over time.
    • If shut down for each winter season, I am also wondering if this would further add to maintenance issues. I would assume that shutdowns would allow for water to back fill the feed lines. When re-activated, I would also assume that this extra moisture in the feed lines would provide a fertile environment for molds and bacteria to grow, furthering my concerns about maintenance. If this would occur, I would not only have to worry about replacing the aeration dome, but also trying to figure out how to snake the feed line(s). If this is the case, I'm thinking the "Cons" really begin to outweigh the Pros.

If I decide to install "standard" BDs, instead of aerated ones, I was thinking that if I had enough water "thinning" occuring in my TTs/showers, and falls, my water oxygenation "should be" adequate. I could also enhance water oxygenation by putting air stones in the submerged filter tanks which would increase oxygen content directly to any beneficial bacteria dwelling there as well as what would be generally available to go back to the pond.

If I go with TTs/showers, I was thinking of allowing for a system bypass that would feed directly TPRs/jets from the submerged filtration tanks. This bypass would be used during winter months to prevent the TTs/showers and falls from providing additional cooling to the pond. As such I would be flowing oxygenated water from the submerged filter tanks into the pond as well. While I understand that this flow would NOT be able to replace the levels of oyxgenation that the TTs/showers and falls would have provided; I would be counting on the fact(?) that the koi would be much less active during these months, thus needing much less oxygen as well.

Are my assumptions regarding BD Pros and Cons reasonable? If I am missing something, any additional input would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

[mitten]

Sea Brothers 2000-

I can't type fast enough or draw well enough to relate all the answers like I would like to.. Sorry.