Tank Turnover rate

[leon.1980]

So there seems to be no hard details on needed turnover rate. The answer used to be 10 to 50 times per hour. Now depending on who you ask its 1 to 10, based off the improved filtration we have today. I am starting an experiment decreasing my hourly turnover rate of my tank weekly.

Why: Because i want to see if i can lower it enough without adverse effects to run my UV sterilizer for protozoa directly on my return. This will require me getting it down to 90 GPM.

Details: I will make weekly decreases by a rate of 50GPM. Every Wednesday I will take measurements of my Ammonia, Nitrate, Nitrite, Phosphate, ORP and Visual Comparison of Tank Water Yellowing compared to a control of fresh salt water. After i make these measurements i will complete the decrease of 50 GPM.

My starting stats are as follow:
Ammonia: 0
Nitrite ULR .006 ppm
Nirate ULR 0 PPM
Phosphate .12PPM
ORP 419
GPM 509

As this is based off my tank the following are my stats.
Tank: Red Sea 425 XL
Fish: 2 Clown fish, Diamond Goby, Mandarin Dragonette
Coral: 3 BT Anenomies, 1 Hammer, 1 Clove, 1 Torch, 1 Green Slimer Acro, 1 Zoa Colony
Filtration: Reef Mat 500, Reef Octopus Classic 150INT

Let me know if your interested in my findings as if noones interested i wont take the time to make the subsequent posts obviously.

 

[DanyL]

It is an interesting experiment, I would like to see the results.

That being said, why don't you use a manifold with a valve to control the flow to the UV separately?
There will be some fluctuations on the flow rate from time to time, but they are negligible.
And yes, it'll decrease the overall turnover as well, however you wouldn't need to decrease it to match the flow rate required by the UV.

Just food for thought.

 

[Rick Mathew]

So there seems to be no hard details on needed turnover rate. The answer used to be 10 to 50 times per hour. Now depending on who you ask its 1 to 10, based off the improved filtration we have today. I am starting an experiment decreasing my hourly turnover rate of my tank weekly.

Why: Because i want to see if i can lower it enough without adverse effects to run my UV sterilizer for protozoa directly on my return. This will require me getting it down to 90 GPM.

Details: I will make weekly decreases by a rate of 50GPM. Every Wednesday I will take measurements of my Ammonia, Nitrate, Nitrite, Phosphate, ORP and Visual Comparison of Tank Water Yellowing compared to a control of fresh salt water. After i make these measurements i will complete the decrease of 50 GPM.

My starting stats are as follow:
Ammonia: 0
Nitrite ULR .006 ppm
Nirate ULR 0 PPM
Phosphate .12PPM
ORP 419
GPM 509

As this is based off my tank the following are my stats.
Tank: Red Sea 425 XL
Fish: 2 Clown fish, Diamond Goby, Mandarin Dragonette
Coral: 3 BT Anenomies, 1 Hammer, 1 Clove, 1 Torch, 1 Green Slimer Acro, 1 Zoa Colony
Filtration: Reef Mat 500, Reef Octopus Classic 150INT

Let me know if your interested in my findings as if noones interested i wont take the time to make the subsequent posts obviously.

Sounds interesting...I will follow

 

[leon.1980]

It is an interesting experiment, I would like to see the results.

That being said, why don't you use a manifold with a valve to control the flow to the UV separately?
There will be some fluctuations on the flow rate from time to time, but they are negligible.
And yes, it'll decrease the overall turnover as well, however you wouldn't need to decrease it to match the flow rate required by the UV.

Just food for thought.

Because a manifold will still require an extra return to the dt. I don’t want an extra pvc coming up and over the top of my tank and going through my lid.

 

[DanyL]

Because a manifold will still require an extra return to the dt. I don’t want an extra pvc coming up and over the top of my tank and going through my lid.

I don't use a UV myself, however I do have my chiller running through a manifold with it's return coming back into the first chamber. I've been running it like this for over a decade now on 2 different systems and never experienced a noticeable temperature difference between my sump and dt.

This is in fact how many mass produced tanks are designed to function (see Red Sea, Cade, etc), you might want to read more about it, could be an easier path to follow.

 

[leon.1980]

I don't use a UV myself, however I do have my chiller running through a manifold with it's return coming back into the first chamber. I've been running it like this for over a decade now on 2 different systems and never experienced a noticeable temperature difference between my sump and dt.

This is in fact how many mass produced tanks are designed to function (see Red Sea, Cade, etc), you might want to read more about it, could be an easier path to follow.

I could do that. But this is a uv. Not a chiller. A uv sterilizer is more efficient when ran in line.

 

[Spare time]

I really don't think tank turnover rate matters that much in terms is simpling going through the sump and back. As long as it's reasonable then I wouldn't worry. I usually like to have mine high to get a better "pull" of particulates and what not into the filter socks as well as making it easier to monitor evaporation.



PS becareful with 0 nitrate

 

[DanyL]

I could do that. But this is a uv. Not a chiller. A uv sterilizer is more efficient when ran in line.

It most definitely more efficient when ran in line, so is a chiller.
The question here is how significant it really is compared to the trade off taken to run it in line.

Also, you don't have to agree with me, it's just the route I would've gone with if I was looking to add a UV to a running system and thought you might find it insightful.

 

[leon.1980]

It most definitely more efficient when ran in line, so is a chiller.
The question here is how significant it really is compared to the trade off taken to run it in line.

Also, you don't have to agree with me, it's just the route I would've gone with if I was looking to add a UV to a running system and thought you might find it insightful.

No, I do agree with you. I think I’m just going to keep it as is honestly. As my tank, it’s more and more stocked I’m gonna have to increase flow rate more and more anyways to keep up with it so my little “experiment” will end up being a wash anyways.
maybe I’ll eventually run it through a manifold, but for now I have a pump for my UV sterilizer that draws from the skimmer chamber and returns to the return chamber. I did it this way so that I can run it as efficiently as possible and not rerun some of the same water.

 

[MnFish1]

So there seems to be no hard details on needed turnover rate. The answer used to be 10 to 50 times per hour. Now depending on who you ask its 1 to 10, based off the improved filtration we have today. I am starting an experiment decreasing my hourly turnover rate of my tank weekly.

Why: Because i want to see if i can lower it enough without adverse effects to run my UV sterilizer for protozoa directly on my return. This will require me getting it down to 90 GPM.

Details: I will make weekly decreases by a rate of 50GPM. Every Wednesday I will take measurements of my Ammonia, Nitrate, Nitrite, Phosphate, ORP and Visual Comparison of Tank Water Yellowing compared to a control of fresh salt water. After i make these measurements i will complete the decrease of 50 GPM.

My starting stats are as follow:
Ammonia: 0
Nitrite ULR .006 ppm
Nirate ULR 0 PPM
Phosphate .12PPM
ORP 419
GPM 509

As this is based off my tank the following are my stats.
Tank: Red Sea 425 XL
Fish: 2 Clown fish, Diamond Goby, Mandarin Dragonette
Coral: 3 BT Anenomies, 1 Hammer, 1 Clove, 1 Torch, 1 Green Slimer Acro, 1 Zoa Colony
Filtration: Reef Mat 500, Reef Octopus Classic 150INT

Let me know if your interested in my findings as if noones interested i wont take the time to make the subsequent posts obviously.

First thanks for posting this. Whether you're using goal is to use the UV differently, the experiment itself is interesting. I would suggest a couple things though.

1. Post your theory (i.e. your hypothesis), I.e. I think there will be no difference between the higher and lower flow, or " think the flow will affect the chemicals negatively, etc.

2. I would Take 2 (3 better) initial measurements - perhaps a day apart to have a clear average baseline.

3. Your flow- how you're planning to lower it (and measure it)?

4. Make sure that you don't change feeding, or other parameters, dosing, etc during the experiment!!

5. If you have a PAR meter - it might be interesting to measure that - as perhaps a measure of how yellowed the water is (possibly) getting?

Thanks again for posting it.

 

[DanyL]

No, I do agree with you. I think I’m just going to keep it as is honestly. As my tank, it’s more and more stocked I’m gonna have to increase flow rate more and more anyways to keep up with it so my little “experiment” will end up being a wash anyways.
maybe I’ll eventually run it through a manifold, but for now I have a pump for my UV sterilizer that draws from the skimmer chamber and returns to the return chamber. I did it this way so that I can run it as efficiently as possible and not rerun some of the same water.

I understand your situation very well, I've been there.
As someone that runs an SPS dominated tank, as things grow out flow becomes a constant concern, and a manifold does slightly reduce it. However, unlike the old days where the recommendation of X50 turnover for SPS tanks was popular, these days we do have easier solutions to achieve the same using more compact, but powerful wave makers instead. So with this in mind, you can still achieve your goal if you find the gain in performance worth it.

On another note, regarding the performance differences using a manifold or a separate pump, I know that many reefers do not run their UV 24/7, but rather for periods of 6 to 12 hours each day. I'm not sure how you run yours, but if you do fall into this group you can compensate the loss in performance by running the UV a couple of hours more each day.

 

[leon.1980]

I understand your situation very well, I've been there.
As someone that runs an SPS dominated tank, as things grow out flow becomes a constant concern, and a manifold does slightly reduce it. However, unlike the old days where the recommendation of X50 turnover for SPS tanks was popular, these days we do have easier solutions to achieve the same using more compact, but powerful wave makers instead. So with this in mind, you can still achieve your goal if you find the gain in performance worth it.

On another note, regarding the performance differences using a manifold or a separate pump, I know that many reefers do not run their UV 24/7, but rather for periods of 6 to 12 hours each day. I'm not sure how you run yours, but if you do fall into this group you can compensate the loss in performance by running the UV a couple of hours more each day.

Yeah. I run mine 24/7.
Also we’re talking about 2 different things. I’m not concerned about flow in the tank. I’m talking about turnover rate of my tanks water volume going through my sump.

 

[DanyL]

Yeah. I run mine 24/7.
Also we’re talking about 2 different things. I’m not concerned about flow in the tank. I’m talking about turnover rate of my tanks water volume going through my sump.

We might indeed have been talking about 2 different things, or rather 2 different approaches to achieve the same goal.
I'm aware of the difference between inner flow in the display tank and system turnover, that being said, there is a close relation between them in terms of the effectiveness of your filtration which can either be optimized by a larger turnover, or by a better inner circulation of the display tank.

I admit it was somewhat difficult for me to properly explain it in English, but I hope I was able to pass the general idea behind it.

 

[leon.1980]

We might indeed have been talking about 2 different things, or rather 2 different approaches to achieve the same goal.
I'm aware of the difference between inner flow in the display tank and system turnover, that being said, there is a close relation between them in terms of the effectiveness of your filtration which can either be optimized by a larger turnover, or by a better inner circulation of the display tank.

I admit it was somewhat difficult for me to properly explain it in English, but I hope I was able to pass the general idea behind it.

Yeah. You did a fine job
I don’t want too much flow in thank though as I’m going for a mixed reef. A few sps, half dozen at most, and then lps and softies.

 

[greeno1645]

So there seems to be no hard details on needed turnover rate. The answer used to be 10 to 50 times per hour. Now depending on who you ask its 1 to 10, based off the improved filtration we have today. I am starting an experiment decreasing my hourly turnover rate of my tank weekly.

Why: Because i want to see if i can lower it enough without adverse effects to run my UV sterilizer for protozoa directly on my return. This will require me getting it down to 90 GPM.

Details: I will make weekly decreases by a rate of 50GPM. Every Wednesday I will take measurements of my Ammonia, Nitrate, Nitrite, Phosphate, ORP and Visual Comparison of Tank Water Yellowing compared to a control of fresh salt water. After i make these measurements i will complete the decrease of 50 GPM.

My starting stats are as follow:
Ammonia: 0
Nitrite ULR .006 ppm
Nirate ULR 0 PPM
Phosphate .12PPM
ORP 419
GPM 509

As this is based off my tank the following are my stats.
Tank: Red Sea 425 XL
Fish: 2 Clown fish, Diamond Goby, Mandarin Dragonette
Coral: 3 BT Anenomies, 1 Hammer, 1 Clove, 1 Torch, 1 Green Slimer Acro, 1 Zoa Colony
Filtration: Reef Mat 500, Reef Octopus Classic 150INT

Let me know if your interested in my findings as if noones interested i wont take the time to make the subsequent posts obviously.

Hello! I'm a bit of a science guy... less of a reef guy, but this experiment interests me.

So, first off, I think you are taking a risk that you create a catastrophic failure to your tank by making such a significant decrease in flow (50gpm reduction each week). You don't know what the criticical flow point is that sustains your tank, and from what I've seen, once the collapse is in motion...it is hard to stop.

Regarding the experiment... I understand how you can monitor fluxuations in your water quality, but how are you going to tell if there is any fluxuations in the effectiveness of your UV with killing protozoa?

As water quality begins to fluxuate due to your reduction of flow, you may activate a protozoa spawning that did not exist when the flow was higher. Then, your UV might be working at the same effectiveness, but due to high concentrations of protozoa, you might create a situation where your UV system is no longer sufficient to keep up, regardless of flow rate.

What I'm saying is that I think you have too many variables to draw any scientific conclusion, and you might screw up your currently stable system.

Just a word of caution.

 

[klavmaister]

I have 4 turns/houer at the calculated height for blow-out and 5% loss due to resistance in pipes

0 amonia
0 nitrite
10 nitrate

Reefmate no skimmer 200 liter display 50 liter sump

 

[SemiSharma]

Thanks for sharing.