Home | About Us | Contact Us


Koi Forum - Koi-Bito Magazine straight from Japan
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Do I need a Bakki Shower

  1. #11
    Daihonmei
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,642
    Big picture public service annoucement--- 'Filters' are of two breeds, the rest are details.

    1) a filter to remove organic pollution
    2) a filter to remove inorganic ammonia

    These are methods really to remove pollution. But they can not restore water to its original condition-- NONE OF THEM CAN!

    The only thing that can return your water to pristine condition is the method of dilution. And that is accomplished by adding NEW water to old water. The NEW water is water that has not been polluted or depleted of natural mineral and micronutrient content.

    The VERY best closed system is one that is not closed! If you could divert water from a pure river and run it through, and out, your 5000 gallon pond at 1000 gallons an hour, you would have the best of the best in the way of water quality ( assumming the river was pure and ideal).

    So filtration is a necessary evil. NOT a good thing, but the next best thing to a good thing.
    If you look at a bakki shower objectively and dispassionately ( meaning forget the marketing and hype) you have two things;

    1) a large active biological surface with some trapping problems.
    2) the benefit of intermediate oxygen and gas exchange infusion/expulsion

    That's a lot-- but that is all it is. IF you already have adequate bioconversion of inorganic toxins and you already have a degassing system in your TT, then a Bakki is over kill and probably a waste of money. JR

  2. #12
    Nisai
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by JasPR View Post
    Big picture public service annoucement--- 'Filters' are of two breeds, the rest are details.

    1) a filter to remove organic pollution
    2) a filter to remove inorganic ammonia

    These are methods really to remove pollution. But they can not restore water to its original condition-- NONE OF THEM CAN!

    The only thing that can return your water to pristine condition is the method of dilution. And that is accomplished by adding NEW water to old water. The NEW water is water that has not been polluted or depleted of natural mineral and micronutrient content.

    The VERY best closed system is one that is not closed! If you could divert water from a pure river and run it through, and out, your 5000 gallon pond at 1000 gallons an hour, you would have the best of the best in the way of water quality ( assumming the river was pure and ideal).

    So filtration is a necessary evil. NOT a good thing, but the next best thing to a good thing.
    If you look at a bakki shower objectively and dispassionately ( meaning forget the marketing and hype) you have two things;

    1) a large active biological surface with some trapping problems.
    2) the benefit of intermediate oxygen and gas exchange infusion/expulsion

    That's a lot-- but that is all it is. IF you already have adequate bioconversion of inorganic toxins and you already have a degassing system in your TT, then a Bakki is over kill and probably a waste of money. JR
    I am not sure I have sufficient degassing of ammonia/nitrite so wonder If I would be better running the Trickle tower on own system rather than after the BB3 on the same pump. Also my tap water although fresh and has a low TDS is far from perfect some of that TDS is phosphate. What happens to phosphate in a Bakki shower

  3. #13
    Daihonmei MikeM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Orlando, Florida
    Posts
    11,128
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
    When you say each filtration system on its own would that mean Vortex with or without easy screen, sieve etc or something more basic kike skimmer or/and skimmer baskit
    Keep in mind that what I prefer (my bias) is not necessarily better. With that caution....

    Let's say a person is going to have a Nexus, a bead filter and a shower as their major filters. We could set them up so that water flows from the bottom drain through a sieve to a settlement chamber, then to the Nexus, then to a pump feeding a bead filter with the discharge being to a shower that gravity flows back to the pond. If everything is sized right, such a series of stages should do a great job. But, if you are trying to change over the pond volume every 45 minutes on a 10,000 gallon pond, there is a sizing problem. A Nexus is not going to handle that much water by gravity flow. So, either a Nexus is not used, or the pond is turned over at a slower rate than desired, or the person takes a different approach. The more stages in a single line served by one pump, the more complex the sizing of each component to work to capacity. If the pump goes out, all filtration is gone. Assuming it is desired to have multiple returns in the pond, controlling water flow from the shower filter to get even distribution is a challenge. Serving multiple returns from a single pump is always a challenge.

    So, what I do is use the skimmer I described as pre-filtration for the shower filter, with water returning to the pond directly from the shower. Bottom drain water goes through settlement chamber before going to the Nexus, and then pumped back to the pond. (There are 2 bottom drains, so there are 2 Nexus filters, each with its own pump... But, due to space limits, only one settlement chamber that serves both bottom drains and both Nexus. I'd prefer 2 settlement chambers [actually sieves, if I was doing it over]. ) A skimmer leaf basket/mat precedes a bead filter, which pumps back to the pond. My preference requires more pumps and more operating expense. There are actually 4 pumps on my pond. So, if one is temporarily out of operation, the impact is hardly noticed. The impact of 4 pumps going 24/7 is noticed with each electric bill. Nothing is perfect.

    As to phosphates in a shower filter, I am not aware of phosphate levels being affected by the types of filtration we have been discussing.



    Now, whether you need more filtration is a different question, you know.

  4. #14
    Nisai
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    84
    Thanks guys for some great answers which I have to admit has got me going from one thing and another.At present I am using 3 pumps on 3 systems. However one pumps is just assisting return to skimmer to assist flow back to skimmer. This perhaps could supply the TT and be better utilised. Then I could have 3 pumps, 3 seperate systems.
    I have the facility to change as much water as I like within reason. However there are problems associated with this idea. Yet I have certainly not ruled this out. The water although has a great TDS of 65ppm and no nitrate. Most of this TDS is phosphate and G.H. and there is very little k.H. So not ideal. I have in the past used RO and reduced the G.H. and phosphate considerably. However the amount of RO I can make is limited and therfore cannot change water totally on RO and then there is the added expense of changing membranes. So perhaps I will stick with what I have got for the moment and I might change my system around a bit and see if I can control the nitrate by changing the water.Your input on this is appreciated Best Regards dave

  5. #15
    Tategoi
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    313
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveB View Post
    I am not sure I have sufficient degassing of ammonia/nitrite so wonder If I would be better running the Trickle tower on own system rather than after the BB3 on the same pump. Also my tap water although fresh and has a low TDS is far from perfect some of that TDS is phosphate. What happens to phosphate in a Bakki shower
    Mike has already given you some fantastic answers -- in great detail, I might add -- but I will add just a small amount of repetitive information for clarity.

    Ammonia is most typically dealt with in ponds via conversion to nitrite and subsequently nitrate. Although a small amount of ammonia can be directly off-gassed, this will always be a small fraction of the total ammonia generated. Regardless of what size shower one builds or what media one places in it, ammonia conversion is a fact of pond-keeping life.

    Nitrite is not off-gassed. Nitrate is not off-gassed. Some intermediate nitrogen compounds can be off-gassed, but these do not reflect the bulk of the ammonia generated by keeping fish.

    Showers are fantastic for off-gassing carbon dioxide from the water as well for allowing for a very effective influx of oxygen. Showers do require some electricity for lifting the water, and typically cause some evaporative cooling. There are pros and cons to all of these things. Best of luck with your design.

  6. #16
    Tosai
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    46
    Hi,

    Going a little off topic here, but can one cetus sieve handle intake from a bottom drain n surface skimmer at the same time?

    Cheers,
    Pau

  7. #17
    Nisai
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Paultergeist View Post
    Mike has already given you some fantastic answers -- in great detail, I might add -- but I will add just a small amount of repetitive information for clarity.

    Ammonia is most typically dealt with in ponds via conversion to nitrite and subsequently nitrate. Although a small amount of ammonia can be directly off-gassed, this will always be a small fraction of the total ammonia generated. Regardless of what size shower one builds or what media one places in it, ammonia conversion is a fact of pond-keeping life.

    Nitrite is not off-gassed. Nitrate is not off-gassed. Some intermediate nitrogen compounds can be off-gassed, but these do not reflect the bulk of the ammonia generated by keeping fish.

    Showers are fantastic for off-gassing carbon dioxide from the water as well for allowing for a very effective influx of oxygen. Showers do require some electricity for lifting the water, and typically cause some evaporative cooling. There are pros and cons to all of these things. Best of luck with your design.
    So can I then say that irespective of media type perhaps the the trickle Tower or BS might be better off after the BubbleBead so that lees fines get to the media as it will still gas off co2. Looking at the relationship between p.H, K,H & CO2 chart I think I have very little CO2 between 1.8 and 2.8 mg/l So Does this mean I would get little or No benifit from fitting a shower over my Trickle Tower with lava rock.At present I do not have any blanketweed since increasing the flow rate over the lava rock from 16000ltrs per hour to 20000 ltrs per hour.Perhaps this could be one reason why. All your thoughts are appreciated

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Need Bakki Shower
    By jasonkoi in forum Pond Construction
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 02-09-, 10:28 AM
  2. New Bakki Shower
    By bighatbulls in forum Pond Construction
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-05-2011, 11:00 PM
  3. New bakki shower
    By HenryC in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 02-12-2011, 04:29 PM
  4. bakki shower
    By nguyen4 in forum Pond Construction
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 01-14-2008, 08:51 AM
  5. More Bakki Shower talk
    By Tom C in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 09-29-2005, 02:27 PM

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