Posing a Sump Setup - Opinions wanted

[Combs1ng]

I am having a discussion later tonight with Jeff from Lifereef about a protein skimmer and custom sump design. I am also currently planning a 412 peninsula style tank (84"x42"x27") that this sump will service. I have never had a tank even close to this size and would like to get some feed back on my proposal. I have viewed many threads and videos and believe I have a plan in place. The tank will have a coast-to-coast, bean-animal, external overflow where the main drain will "Y" or "T" to two side-by-side chambers in the middle of the sump. One side will drain into a chamber with my protein skimmer and carbon dosing (not sure if I want to use filter socks) and the other side into a chamber featuring calcium reactor and maybe some other media. The idea would be to have two refugiums containing live rock, chaeto, (maybe some miracle mud like Mike Paletta and CJ) and pods on each end of the sump, before being returned via a pump on each end (more redundancy). I liked the idea of two refugium ends because I want as many live pods going back into the system as possible(and circulating through less equipment should promote that). I am looking for comments and suggestions on the "loose" design as I am too inexperienced to not include what I may be forgetting (I don't know what I don't know). I am trying to keep this large system as simple as possible so I am not looking to add a ton of gadgets that could be considered "optional" but am looking for more "proven" or "necessary". Any help will be welcome, specifically the order of sump chambers and the like.

For inspiration I have been paying close attention to Rico's aquarium, Mike Paletta's build and an obscure build on Custom Aquariums website and youtube: Michael Crawford (love his simple yet clean designed tank). Thanks to anyone with some advice!

 

[Idoc]

I haven't seen a 2 refugium system before. It seems a single large refugium that slowly dumps into a return chamber would give the best pod production/transfer to your main tank.

Let's see what others think...

 

[Combs1ng]

Yeah, not too many others chiming in but I haven't seen it really before either. Thought it sounded interesting but I also realize if many others aren't doing it, there's usually a reason.

 

[ScottieB]

Sounds like a great setup, the double refugium sounds interesting. I have a similar idea (sort of) on my 300. I recently re-plumbed my sump to the basement but left the previous sump behind the tank and let one of the drains passively flow through it. Theres no light on it, some rock and a power head. It basically functions like a cryptic zone? its loaded with pineapple sponges and assorted other critters.

If you had two they could be run to grow different Macros, different light cycles, considering them both refugiums but with two different purposes. Keep us posted on the build.

 

[Combs1ng]

Sounds like a great setup, the double refugium sounds interesting. I have a similar idea (sort of) on my 300. I recently re-plumbed my sump to the basement but left the previous sump behind the tank and let one of the drains passively flow through it. Theres no light on it, some rock and a power head. It basically functions like a cryptic zone? its loaded with pineapple sponges and assorted other critters.

If you had two they could be run to grow different Macros, different light cycles, considering them both refugiums but with two different purposes. Keep us posted on the build.

Thanks Scottie. Just a unsure whether or not to go a little unconventional or stick with other methods.

 

[Combs1ng]

I haven't seen a 2 refugium system before. It seems a single large refugium that slowly dumps into a return chamber would give the best pod production/transfer to your main tank.

Let's see what others think...

...and go Bucks! Not our best showing but pulled out the win this past Saturday!

 

[Bruce60]

I think a double refugium would make sense if they are two different ecosystems, as suggested by ScottieB. Otherwise, a single larger refugium makes more sense and is more economical.

One other comment. If you have not had a deep tank, think about how you are going to access the bottom center of the tank. That is a 3 foot reach. I had a deep tanks in the past and it was a significant issue.

Good luck, and keep us in the loop on your progress!

 

[Idoc]

...and go Bucks! Not our best showing but pulled out the win this past Saturday!

It's always good to see other good Buckeye fans!!

 

[Combs1ng]

I think a double refugium would make sense if they are two different ecosystems, as suggested by ScottieB. Otherwise, a single larger refugium makes more sense and is more economical.

One other comment. If you have not had a deep tank, think about how you are going to access the bottom center of the tank. That is a 3 foot reach. I had a deep tanks in the past and it was a significant issue.

Good luck, and keep us in the loop on your progress!

Thanks Bruce. I am planning to probably do a seagrass bottom and I have lately been thinking about the reach in the middle. I'm not sure how much maintenance there is with seagrass( I actually have another post up about this) but it is a concern of mine. Do you think dropping it to 25" height would be more suitable?

 

[ScottB]

I have two sumps running a three tank system, but only because footprint space is tight. Who does not want more sump space?

Can I confirm the advantage you intend to gain from running two fuges? You are looking to have the first (upstream) fuge work as filtration, and the second (downstream) as your pod factory & mud vessel? You can certainly make it function that way, but fuges do create a modest amount of additional upkeep IME.

 

[Combs1ng]

I figured the advantage might be more live pods being sent to the main tank with the 2 refugiums on each end of the sump system. This way, the pods do not get "thrown" into the mechanical filtering and instead are directly sent through the refugium>return pump>DT. I also thought two refugium tanks offer options in terms of refugium biotopes for various algaes, possible variations in sand beds, etc.

 

[Bruce60]

Thanks Bruce. I am planning to probably do a seagrass bottom and I have lately been thinking about the reach in the middle. I'm not sure how much maintenance there is with seagrass( I actually have another post up about this) but it is a concern of mine. Do you think dropping it to 25" height would be more suitable?

You need to consider how you will reach each area of the tank depending on its placement. Remember the Pythagorean Theorem and the right angle triangle? I don't see how to do a superscript, but the length of the hypotenuse of the triangle (which is your reach) is related to the squares of the distance to the bottom and the horizontal reach distance.

For example, you indicate that this is a peninsula tank. So, assuming you have free access along both longest lengths of the tank, the furthest you have to reach is 27" down and 21" in. Doing the math, that comes to over 34" in reach. If you reduce the height of the tank by 2", you will reduce the reach by about 1-1/2".

In my experience I have found that as the top edge of the tank gets close to your armpit, it gets more awkward to maneuver. I would test out some of the longer reach tongs to see how well you can manipulate common objects. You will also have to invest in a pair of long gloves (mine come almost to my armpit) to avoid exposing the tank to 'pollutants' from the human body and protect yourself from injury.

 

[Combs1ng]

You need to consider how you will reach each area of the tank depending on its placement. Remember the Pythagorean Theorem and the right angle triangle? I don't see how to do a superscript, but the length of the hypotenuse of the triangle (which is your reach) is related to the squares of the distance to the bottom and the horizontal reach distance.

For example, you indicate that this is a peninsula tank. So, assuming you have free access along both longest lengths of the tank, the furthest you have to reach is 27" down and 21" in. Doing the math, that comes to over 34" in reach. If you reduce the height of the tank by 2", you will reduce the reach by about 1-1/2".

In my experience I have found that as the top edge of the tank gets close to your armpit, it gets more awkward to maneuver. I would test out some of the longer reach tongs to see how well you can manipulate common objects. You will also have to invest in a pair of long gloves (mine come almost to my armpit) to avoid exposing the tank to 'pollutants' from the human body and protect yourself from injury.

Good advice. I am familiar with the pythagorean theorem and it would be quite the reach. As I intend to place less corals in the tank and want to plant the seagrasses and let them spread, I don't anticipate reaching to the bottom too often. Though I am not naive enough to think it wont ever come up. A large determinant will be the care and maintenance involved with a seagrass biotope. My current thought process is that the sand bed shouldn't need siphoned, I don't believe the grasses will need pruned and I won't be planting anything that low in the tank once the grass is in. So, my current ignorant theory is that a deeper aquarium should have minimal issues. Again, I want to dig deeper before committing .