Home | About Us | Contact Us


Koi Forum - Koi-Bito Magazine straight from Japan
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: Skimmer Screw-up

  1. #11
    Sansai
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    195
    I would agree with Mike, a shower filter is a waterfall but with a much higher surface area to volume of flow ratio. Shower filters are a concentrated and more efficient form of natures waterfalls.


    I have a new favorite word....Biomimetics.

  2. #12
    Tategoi
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Fremont, CA
    Posts
    367
    I don't disagree flatly with your post Mike but I don't relate a waterfall to a TT or bakki, much more surface area to the latter two. A waterfall doesn't have nearly the surface area to consider it anything more than a minor oxygen source, and next to zero as a bacterial media; all the other sources mentioned, so far eclipse it. Its aesthetics is the only part of it's attraction in modern ponds. I think a TT, is well worth the energy consumed but a Bakki just takes too much energy if operated as a true Bakki.

    Bad! If the skimmer line were connected to the BD line thru the third leg of a T, it probably wouldn’t have worked. The third leg of a T requires quite a bit of head to overcome the water running from the straight side. If I had to run a similar configuration I would go to at least the next size pipe, at the T, and use it as a manifold.

    Now that you ran the separate 3” line it should flow unless the run is exceptionally long, compared to the BD or there are several 90s, etc. If not, it’s most likely the BD line head is so low that there just isn’t enough drop to motivate the skimmer water. Closing the BD flow, in this case, wouldn’t hurt because the head needed would be very small and wouldn’t hurt the BD head. There would be less BD flow because the main pump will pull around the same flow as before so the pump water is shared by the two sources.

    I don’t understand how the skimmer will work with a submerged pump at the skimmer end. How is it hooked up without going through the weir?

    Biomimetics??? Will I see that one often enough that I will have to add it to my thesaurus? It’s highlighted by my spell checker too.

  3. #13
    Sansai WayneB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Cape Town, South Africa
    Posts
    270
    I agree fully with MCA - Each suction line must have its own filtration. I run 2 systems on my one pond. The one system sucks from my skimmer and is running pressurized system with sand filters, canister filters and venturis while the other uses gravity fed vortxes and gravity return via waterfall and surface level returns. Best of both worlds in my opinion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rich L View Post
    ------------------------------------------------

    I can support different types of filters after the mechanical filtration but there is simply unnessary redundancy with two pumps and bead filters.

    As we approach energy conservation we will have to look at the value added by our waterfalls. they don't supply anything toward healthy water that they did before we added sir stones everywhere. The only value left is the appearance and sound of them. Do you need them 24h/d? With filters removed they can operate when we are there to appreciate and leave them off the rest of the time. A timer can do that automaticly.
    I dont think you can compare a waterfall with air stones. Thats like comparing a fan with the wind. A waterfall gives far more gas excahnge and oxygen than that an air stone ever will. I do not understand the argument that taking a waterfall away will help energy conservation?.... Surely a waterfall is nothing more than a return, returning via set of cascading rocks....you dont need a huge pump to achieve that....Well i guess it depends on your idea of a waterfall but to achieve a good enough flow for a waterfall you need 250L of water per minute thats 15000 L /hr. Now thats not a huge pump.

    I designed my system so that one of my returns return via a waterfall after passing through 2 raised vortexes. So the water passed through the bio filter and now just cascades back into the pond...How will i save energy by taking the waterfall out? I think a waterfall is actually an enviromentally friendly way of airting water. To run an airstone you will have to run an additiona pump meaning more electricity and more maintenance while using a waterfall requires no additional pumps. I am not saying that running airstones are bad, i am just not getting your argument.

  4. #14
    Sansai
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    195
    I regularly run multiple drain lines into prefiltration systems as a space saving option simply because yards with space just aren't that predominent. The key is to pull the proper amount of water from the tank to accomodate the flow of the multiple sources. Each source to the tank only reacts to the difference in tank water level as compared to the pond and the size of line and length in pipe friction connecting the two. If I have a 4 inch bottom drain and a 4 inch skimmer or other bottom drain attahed to a tank and I flow 7200 gph out of that tank each will flow approx 3600 gph except for the difference in pipe length and maybe a bend. Each pipe reacts to the difference in water level regardless of what else is entering the tank. It's not that hard. I do it successfully every time. Where people get in trouble is not using correct pipe sizes or pump flow rates.

  5. #15
    Sansai
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    195
    I would also have to agree that a waterfall is of value. While an aerator moves water most of it's oxygenating ability comes from making the surface turbulent and increasing pond surface area. A waterfall exposes a high volume of pond water to air increasing surface area and makes the surface turbulent. A shower filter is much more efficient because it exposes the ponds water to air and bacterial surface area in a much higher ratio for the same energy required to lift the water. The only energy a shower filter should require is the head required by the height of the showers diffuser which if designed properly shouldn't be that much.

  6. #16
    Tategoi
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Fremont, CA
    Posts
    367
    My proposal is with all the filtering in the ground so there won't be any raised water. The shower filters offer something in-ground filters don't but that's the only reason I would propose raising the water 24/7. Even there, I wonder it the fluidized beds so popular now are as effective at a lower cost. The airlift caused by a diffuser or even open air injected at depth will raise large quantities of water to be exposed at the surface I have moved 3000 GPH to the surface using a 65 watt air pump and that water can be used to do something else. That's pretty efficient.

    My hope is to encourage energy and water conservation. I know much of the country and world don't have to deal with this problem but, in my area, the future of the hobby will be impacted if we don't come up with some effective solutions that hobbyists will choose to use.

  7. #17
    Sansai
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    195
    I would agree and usually my waterfalls are as short as possible with only a portion of the ponds flow. The balance is with in ground filtration and returns and my favorite is the airlift combined with aerated biofiltration.
    It's very hard from a marketing standpoint to eliminate the waterfall concept all together though. Many times it's the main draw (other than the fish) and it gives a visual value to the money they've spent. I applaud what you're doing but it won't be easy.

  8. #18
    Tategoi
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Fremont, CA
    Posts
    367
    I wouldn't want to eliminate them either. Just put the on timers so they operate when someone's around to enjoy them.

    You're doing a great job of spreading the word with living examples.

  9. #19
    MCA
    MCA is offline
    Honmei MCA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    2,574
    If you put waterfalls, showers, and TT on a timer you will very likely lose the bacteria colonies...and one of the key reasons to have those filters. When the water restarts you should regain the aeration/degassing benefits.

    If energy and water conservation, and not optimum growth and maintenance, are the objectives.....probably a mechanical stage, such as a sieve, followed by pump pushing the water throught an O3 reaction chamber and a UV (to make sure the O3 is spent) should be a very energy effecient way to clean the water...and minimize water changes.

  10. #20
    Tategoi
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Fremont, CA
    Posts
    367
    Quote Originally Posted by MCA View Post
    If you put waterfalls, showers, and TT on a timer you will very likely lose the bacteria colonies...and one of the key reasons to have those filters. When the water restarts you should regain the aeration/degassing benefits.

    If energy and water conservation, and not optimum growth and maintenance, are the objectives.....probably a mechanical stage, such as a sieve, followed by pump pushing the water throught an O3 reaction chamber and a UV (to make sure the O3 is spent) should be a very energy effecient way to clean the water...and minimize water changes.
    If properly designed, none of these will harm growth or health. That's the main goal of any filtration system and shouldn't be compromised. A bakki by itself is the only system that will lower maintenance, if it lives up to it's promises. On the other hand I'm getting feedback that protien and DOCs are increased so next we will see ponds needing protien skimmers and more devices to target the problems unique to differing systems.

    I would put a waterfall only on a timer. minimal oxygen where it's needed and essentially no nitrogenation or other bacterial colonies.

    TTs are still a valuable filter when along with submrged media but I do wonder if the air fluidized beds don't fill that space as well. And none of them increase the pond oxygen levels along the bottom.

    Only problem with Bakkis is the power consumption when the same can be done in other ways.

    Europe uses ozone; I assume effectively. But that's all I know about that.

    A few years ago someone back east was experimenting with hydroxyl generators. They used an electrolysis process to strip hydroxyls from ozone(destroying the ozone) and very effectively totally clean and oxygenate pond water. In one of their experiments they had several large koi living in a raceway with no filtration at all for several months without any visible signes of problems in the koi. One of the problems was a need for a very conductive environment and baking soda was being used to raise the TDS (also the KH). Never heard of any problems but eventually it disappeared.

    Hydroxyls are very short lived and create more hydroxyls when organic compounds are destroyed. This chain reaction continues until the immediate organics are destroyed and stops within a few seconds when no more are remaining.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Surface Skimmer
    By DavidSoon in forum Pond Construction
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-10-2011, 04:25 PM
  2. protien skimmer
    By smkngstv in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-21-2010, 04:58 PM
  3. skimmer box
    By sav3406 in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-09-2009, 02:40 PM
  4. DIY Skimmer
    By garywalker in forum Pond Construction
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-23-2008, 04:31 PM
  5. Skimmer /shower.
    By deano in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-23-2005, 12:51 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