The great equipment debate..

ClearRain · Mar 25, 2016

So I'd like to bring my predicament to you guys. Basically, I'm caught between flow vs skimming. I have a 54g corner currently fitted with a Coralife super skimmer rated for 100 gal and my flow consists only of my mag 7 return pump and a hydor 450. My tank is now dominated by sps, but 90% of them are frags. Should I grab an mp40 or a reef octopus skimmer?

twilliard · Mar 25, 2016

Mp40

Battlecorals · Mar 25, 2016

Since you have a skimmer that will suffice, id go with more flow. Cant really have too much for sps in my opinion In a 54 one mp 40 would be good 2 would be better, or a pair of gyres. If cost is an issue then consider a couple wp's

ClearRain · Mar 25, 2016

I was leaning toward the mp40 to begin with, I know my flow is lacking. I'll probably grab the mp40, the settings on it are super exciting to me!

mcarroll · Mar 26, 2016

For the money and function, I would prefer a Tunze option. But you'll need something more than that 450 within the next few weeks/months as those corals start growing in.

You're fine for the moment though....do as much reading/research as you can stand in the mean time. Even if you don't pick Tunze's pumps you should watch their YouTube on Flow vs Turbulence.

And just to throw out the other decent, affordable option that never gets said:

You can also add 2 (or more!) additional 450's and use simple timers to create excellent flow.

The exciting flow settings you mentioned are entirely for you, which is OK...just saying the corals will be just as pleased with timers and more 450's. Holler if this is interesting and you want more details - I know it's not the direction you're heading with this thread.

Greatreefer · Mar 26, 2016

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the maxspec great xf130 or xf150. I personally think those are way more efficient at pushing water than the vortechs.

Battlecorals · Mar 26, 2016

Greatreefer said:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the maxspec great xf130 or xf150. I personally think those are way more efficient at pushing water than the vortechs.

i did

Greatreefer · Mar 26, 2016

Battlecorals said:
i did

Read the whole post and my brain skipped over the word gyre. Lol!..

hart24601 · Mar 26, 2016

Another vote for flow. Primary Sps tanks imo should have 100x turnover or higher. I had 100x in my mixed reef and wanted more! Of course the usual flow rules apply, don't point powerheads directly at coral and such.

mcarroll · Mar 26, 2016

hart24601 said:
Another vote for flow. Primary Sps tanks imo should have 100x turnover or higher. I had 100x in my mixed reef and wanted more! Of course the usual flow rules apply, don't point powerheads directly at coral and such.

I think I've developed a problem the "times X" way of rating flow.

This isn't the era of the MaxiJet and closed loops anymore. It's easy with the pumps available today to get astronimical "times X" numbers. I think they really only apply to (mostly) empty tanks.

Thing is, on more than one occasion I've had a tank in front of me with great numbers (most often generated by Vortechs) but with mediocre-to-poor flow depending on the case.

I had a pair of the original MP40's in my 50 breeder, for example. Horrible flow. Placement limitations and fussiness aside, having all the flow emanating from just one or two spots in the tank left dead spots all over the tank! Mind you, this was an established stony reef that was already grow-in, literally half-full of corals, some grown to the surface.....the MP's were suppsosed to be an upgrade over the two Tunze 6045's that were running the tank previously. Three 6045's, as the confiuration ended up being, performed way-way better. I think four 6025's might have even been better.

So, it's good to be conscious of the "time X" number of your flow as a rule of thumb....but it's also good to be conscious that it alone does not indicate good or bad (or even adequate) flow.

mcarroll · Mar 26, 2016

I forgot to mention:

One Tunze 6045 was 1100gph.
One Vortech was 3200gph.

So that "upgrade" on my 50 gallon was from a total of 2200gph to 6400gph! (44x and 128X flow, respectively.)

But the flow was worse.

I ultimately ended up with "only" 3300 gph (or x66 flow) from adding the third 6045....which was vastly superior.

hart24601 · Mar 26, 2016

mcarroll said:
I think I've developed a problem the "times X" way of rating flow.

This isn't the era of the MaxiJet and closed loops anymore. It's easy with the pumps available today to get astronimical "times X" numbers. I think they really only apply to (mostly) empty tanks.

Thing is, on more than one occasion I've had a tank in front of me with great numbers (most often generated by Vortechs) but with mediocre-to-poor flow depending on the case.

I had a pair of the original MP40's in my 50 breeder, for example. Horrible flow. Placement limitations and fussiness aside, having all the flow emanating from just one or two spots in the tank left dead spots all over the tank! Mind you, this was an established stony reef that was already grow-in, literally half-full of corals, some grown to the surface.....the MP's were suppsosed to be an upgrade over the two Tunze 6045's that were running the tank previously. Three 6045's, as the confiuration ended up being, performed way-way better. I think four 6025's might have even been better.

So, it's good to be conscious of the "time X" number of your flow as a rule of thumb....but it's also good to be conscious that it alone does not indicate good or bad (or even adequate) flow.

It's funny you say that because in the past couple of years I feel that rule is more appropriate than ever with the number of SPS centric tanks. Of course you should use common sense and LOOK at the tank and flow patterns, but mature SPS need a crazy amount of flow, and I don't think it's easy at all to get 100x plus turnover numbers that don't include the return - for example my 120 runs a gyre 150 at 80% constant, 2 mp 40 QDs at 80% constant (not 100% only for pump longevity) and I would want even more if it was all SPS. Use common sense of course moving them around if dead spots and not directly blasting corals. Not talking variable potential, but the actual flow numbers for turnover. If you want SPS mature colonies IME you really should have 100x plus turnover, the actual turnover. You have that much flow going on there shouldn't be any dead spots.

hart24601 · Mar 26, 2016

mcarroll said:
I forgot to mention:

One Tunze 6045 was 1100gph.

One Vortech was 3200gph.

So that "upgrade" on my 50 gallon was from a total of 2200gph to 6400gph! (44x and 128X flow, respectively.)

But the flow was worse.

I ultimately ended up with "only" 3300 gph (or x66 flow) from adding the third 6045....which was vastly superior.

You were running those vortechs at 100% constant mode? It's important to consider the true flow when people put variable speed pumps on.

I should add there are some general rules too, they don't always apply, but I assume people know them for questions like this. More pumps generally are better than 1 larger guy. Pointing pumps at each other can create nice chaotic flow patterns - even if directing flow at glass you can direct flow to hit each other and be chaotic and turbulent. Look that tank, move powerheads around, play with it. Look at the coral response. I figure that by the time people are keeping and designing Sps only tanks they know this and the turnover rate is a decent guide.

mcarroll · Mar 27, 2016

They ran in every mode. One on each wall. Both on one side. Both on the back. Etc. I was excited to get them at the time...but the glory was short-lived.

It would take no less than one mp40 on every wall of a tank like that for anything like good flow....the "times X" number would be through the roof! LOL. Honestly, even then I'm not sure.....the fact that they can only be so close to the bottom or surface, can't be aimed, have a super-weak flow (the list goes on) really just made them unsuitable for a dense tank.

It's the toughest type of tank to flow, so keep that in mind...not saying the Vortech can't flow a tank, just that there are limits and "time X" numbers don't tell a lot of the story....just a little.

You have to be able to judge the tank, like you say...but the pump as well....and that seems to be trickier.

mcarroll · Mar 27, 2016

hart24601 said:
You have that much flow going on there shouldn't be any dead spots.

"Shouldn't" is theoretical. And in theory I'd agree with you - it's how I ended up with two mp40's in my 50 breeder!

I've got a funny saying about the difference between theory and practice...but it takes beer.

To be honest, my tank was "kindly" neglected to get so grown in and was very hard to maintain overall in that state...everything about it. It was not an example of stellar husbandry - I just hated fragging things! So, not stellar in that respect, at least...I wouldn't let it get that way again.

So I do speak from experience - not theory - on the pumps' performance. That was a really hard tank to flow, plus have you seen the visual demo of how the Vortech flows water!? It makes perfect sense that they couldn't work out. Anyway, I have pictures to prove it...there are several here on R2R of the tank in at that time in that shape...easy enough to search for I think.

Regardless, I don't think I really read any disagreement, so forget the anecdotes....you simply can't predict performance by putting "times X" flow on a tank. Right?

It matters where the pumps are in the tank.

And it matter what they are doing.

Sometimes a pump that can be aimed will be more efficient than one that cannot be aimed, for one example. There are lots of examples.

You can get a lot out of knowing the differences between pumps.

(That Tunze video does a great job explaining a good bit of it, BTW.)

mcarroll · Mar 27, 2016

hart24601 said:

BTW, I like every photo of your tank... I also like your taste in stony corals. If I could make a backup of your stonies, I would.

How empty/filled up would you say your tank is in that shot? Hard to say from the perspective in that shot, but is it maybe a little over half water-space? (I.e. A little less than half stony reef?)