Silent and Failsafe Overflow System

[JMaxwell]

This is very interesting. I have to say that I am baffled as to how water starts flowing down the middle "siphon" standpipe.

I look at it and all I can see is air trapped in the pipe after the downturned elbow is under water. I am just not getting it or are you supposed to cap off the top of that pipe after startup?

[BeanAnimal]

The trapped air consists of the entire volume of the standpipe. Air is compressable. As the water level in the overflow box begins to rise, the head pressure on that body of water will push it up into that airspace, compressing it slightly. It will then begin to flow over the weir formed by the elbow, bulkhead and tee. Becuse there is no siphon, the water in the overflow box will begin to rise, putting more head pressure on the standpipes. At some point the standpipe will flow enough water over the weir to begin a siphon.

[LoneRanger]

wow, what a great idea, do you think this would work on a much larger setup? Just increasing the diameter of the pipe?


L.R.

[itZme]

Originally posted by LoneRanger
wow, what a great idea, do you think this would work on a much larger setup? Just increasing the diameter of the pipe?


L.R.

It would work fine scaled up but there may not be a need to do that. I have a friend that runs 3600gph through two 1" bulkheads using this siphon method. You could add another siphon drain and keep using the other single open channel standpipe and emergency drains since there is a VERY slim chance of BOTH of the siphon drains will be blocked simultaneously. So one emergency could take the entire flow of a blocked siphon and the other could be supported by the open channel if needed. You could flow roughly 5,000 gph through just two 1" siphon drains and if you upped it to 1.5" bulkheads you could probably run 8,000 gph through.

[BeanAnimal]

Yup... you could certainly add more siphon standpipes if you needed. The systme will always flow more than the same number of durso style standpipes and is much more failsafe. The same basic setup is used in many commercial applications, such as water treatment.

[Qwiv]

While that design will work for someone who wants to run 1500, 3000, 5000 gal/hr through the sump, doing so is stupid and breaks the best design rule, KISS.

your method:
Wastes electricity pumping water up to the display as you need to overcome head preasure,
increase salt creep in the sump,
overly dependent on the pumps in the sump,
limited sump design due to high flow,

I see no benefits!

It is much better to circulate the tank water with either a CL or powerheads and to size the return pump from the sump based on your filtration equipments needs. If your CL or powerheads fail, the return pump will keep the tank alive. If the sump blows up, the CL/powerheads will keep the tank alive. You don't need all the crazy plumbing, a simple level adjusting duruso will work or a 1/2" siphon with 1" open air drain as back-up at 1/4 the cost of your set-up. The sump acts as a settling tank, which you can vacuum! Less heat introduced into the tank.

[itZme]

You must be under the assumption that Bean is trying to use the returns as flow in the tank. That is not at all what he is saying here. The statement about increasing salt creep shows that you have no experience with what this thread is talking about since this method will ELIMINATE ANY salt creep you may be seeing by using a Durso and bubbling the water into the sump. I use this method and flow about 800 gph from through two 75g tanks and another pump that is about 600gph from a 92g tank.
It is not about getting more flow at all (that is just a side benefit if you want to use it)
This will eliminate all the noise from your drains, eliminate salt creep and also let you sleep soundly at night KNOWING that there will not be a flood from your only drain being blocked by a random event.

There is no electricity wasted as he is not pumping any more water than he would using a durso standpipe it is simply returning it to the sump more effectively.

The sump design is not limited in any way since there isn't any more flow going through it than he would have if he was using a durso or any other air introducing device that creates noise and salt creep unnecessarily.

If you study the design or better yet visit a local tank using it you will quickly see how much better it is than using a standard standpipe. I personally have 3 different tanks draining into the same sump and refugium. I have a combined flow of about 1800 gph through the sump. There is about 450 gph going through a 140g six foot refugium. I love the siphon method and will never go back to a gurgling standpipe again.

[BeanAnimal]

I find your remarks a little rude and it would appear that your intent was to be offensive. Nonetheless, I will respond to your comments in oder to set the record straight for those people who are following along.

Firstly, this is not just a design for a high flow sump! It is (I feel) an improved overflow design that is dead silent and failsafe. It will scale well to just about any size system and flow requirement.

But that (high flow sumps) appears to be the arena that you have framed your comments, so I will respond in that context.

Lets look at them one at a time:

Wastes electricity pumping water up to the display as you need to overcome head preasure,

Not in a low flow situation! It works just the same and can be scaled to any size! However back to your point: Many people desire high flow sumps. YOU may not like the notion, but that does not mean that it is a waste of anything. Yes, it does use more energy to overcome higher head pressures. That alone is not the whole story though. You are making a mistake in assuming that there is no reason to have a HIGH FLOW sump. There are reasons, and therefore the energy usage is not a waste or avoidable. YOU may hold that opinion that it is a waste, but that would be your opinion and based on a narrow set of facts without consideration of the many different types and needs of setups.

There are MANY valid reasons for the use of a high flow sump. Manny people use their sumps as RDSBS, Live Rock filters, extensions of the displays, etc. A high flow sump is what makes this possible. Yet other people do not have room for closed loops and do not like the look of powerheads in their tanks, they choose to get a portion of their flow from the return pump. There are plenty of other valid reasons as well.

increase salt creep in the sump,

That is simply not at all correct. This setup does not introduce air into the sump and therefore does not produce salt creep. I have ZERO salt creep in 2 years of operation. Your making assumptions based in a lack of knowledge about the system. The fact is that the system was designed to eliminate the salt creep and bubble problem!

overly dependent on the pumps in the sump,

And a display with CL pumps is overly dependent on them. Your contention here does not make sense. Whatever pumps provide the life support are going to be depended on.

Secondly, the LIFE in the sump is part of the system in some setups. Lets take my sump for example. It holds 1/2 of the LR and 1/3 of the system water. I have therefore increased my bio-capacity by a large margin. The SYSTEM is dependent on the sump and its high flow, but without the sump (or a low flow sump) the system would not support the same bioload. Your contention is based on a shortsighted opinion and a basic flaw in logic. I.E. you are considering only 1 type of setup as good and therefore the ONLY valid way of setting up a fish tank.

limited sump design due to high flow,

A low flow sump is also limited in design and function as well. Each serves a different purpose. Because a round peg does not fit into a square hole, does not mean that EITHER peg is deformed. Is the Minivan limited in function to the dump truck, or the dump truck limited in function to the station wagon? It is all a matter of need.

I see no benefits!

Because you came here to take a pot shot at my design. Each style of system setup has pros and cons. There are many choices to make when designing a system. You are welcome to your opinions, just make sure that you don't confuse those opinions with fact. You may not see a benefit, but many people do.

It is much better to circulate the tank water with either a CL or powerheads and to size the return pump from the sump based on your filtration equipments needs.

No sir, it is not better. It is one way of setting up a tank. Again, pros and cons abound with any design.

If your CL or powerheads fail, the return pump will keep the tank alive.

And In the converse, if the return pump dies, the CL will keep the tank alive. This has nothing to do with the overflow design.

If the sump blows up, the CL/powerheads will keep the tank alive.

And likewise, if my sump blows up my CL will keep my tank alive. This has nothing to do with the overflow design.

You don't need all the crazy plumbing,

That is your opinion, but the examples you give below indicate that you do not understand this design. The plumbing is not at all crazy. They are as simple (or more so) than a stockman or a durso. They are standpipes. Only (1) needs a valve. The airline can be omitted and the system still MUCH more failsafe than a Durso or Stockman.

a simple level adjusting Durso will work or a 1/2" siphon with 1" open air drain as back-up at 1/4 the cost of your set-up.

There is no failsafe in such a setup. The durso introduces air into the sump and is also a PITA to keep adjusted. Been there, done that, so have countless others. This is not quiet it is DEAD SILENT and has NO salt creep. It is failsafe for just about any kind of clog or mishap and never needs adjusted.

The sump acts as a settling tank, which you can vacuum!

MY sump does act as a settling tank that I can vacuum out. Even if it did not (the flow as you content was too high), there is a popular school of thought that says you want to keep the detritus in suspension until it is eaten or skimmed out. Either way, this is a non argument.

Less heat introduced into the tank.

Watts are Watts my friend. A 140W closed loop pump puts the same heat into the tank as a 140W return pump. The CL pump may flow a bit more due to the lack of head and you could make the heat per gallon of flow argument. However, you need to keep in mind that a sump can serve many purposes depending on the system topology. A low flow sump is not an option in some setups and therefore the point is moot. Also, as already pointed out, this system works for LOW FLOW sumps as well. Watts are Watts and the point is also moot.

This intent of this thread is not to debate the pros and cons of high-flow or low-flow sumps, it was to document a silent and failsafe method of creating an overflow system. I have responded to each of your points and shown them to be poorly supported by the facts. I would hope that we can leave this here.

[dixonjk]

Bean

I think you did a very good job in replying to this guys comments. I guess you have to expect some to be jealous of the level of design work in you system! In so many threads I see the "you dont need this" or "this is over kill". Well, while I am planning and buying for my setup I always think..... how would SeaWorld do this, not how can I get out the easy way. Please keep sharing your work!

Jeff

[jmait769]

Bean – Not much to figure out after your first very detailed post and this:

1) Dead Silent
2) Set and Forget
3) Limit Bubbles in Sump
4) Failsafe to Prevent Floods
5) Easy to Clean if Needed

It’s not like you set this up yesterday. Thank you for posting this. It will be incorporated into my next setup. Oh, and awesome rendering!!!

Jay

[Sanjay]

Bean:

I have seen people do this very sucessfully with 2. 1 standpipe with ball/gate valve to maintian water level above it and 1 emergency drain set slightly higher. What is the purpose of the 3rd ? Is there a real need for it, if each of you other pipes has enough capacity to handle the water flow. ?

Nice rendering.. does AUTOCAD have a good plumbing parts library ?

sanjay.

[hebygb]

Thanks for the design, the outstanding graphics, and for taking the high ground when confronted by someone who missed the intent of the thread. This one has been bookmarked.

[ClayWagner]

dbl

[ClayWagner]

Bean, worst design I've ever seen. Could I see some live pics just incase I set this up on my tank? Not that I would . Are the pipes positioned so that the siphon will stop flowing water when return is off, but still hold the siphon for when it is turned back on? More specifically, do you have to restart the siphon every time? Do you really need the dual overflow? I would think that the siphoned would handle it fine, and of course an emergency on the side. I just hate gurgling....

[hebygb]

sheesh... it has been well documented that there is no gurgling... I believe "dead silent" were the exact words. I may be wrong but this really isnt a siphon as much as it is just a downward facing neck (inside the overflow). This design doesnt really "lift" the water up and over the rim of the tank. It really just manages the flow/air mix that would be inherent in any pipe leaving a tank. On/off power does not have an affect on this design as I see it.

[jasonmartin1313]

neat

[Siffy]

Originally posted by ClayWagner
Bean, worst design I've ever seen. Could I see some live pics just incase I set this up on my tank? Not that I would . Are the pipes positioned so that the siphon will stop flowing water when return is off, but still hold the siphon for when it is turned back on? More specifically, do you have to restart the siphon every time? Do you really need the dual overflow? I would think that the siphoned would handle it fine, and of course an emergency on the side. I just hate gurgling....

It's not a bad design. I don't think you understand the design. Take another look. If it were bad design I doubt it would have been left in use for 2 years before Bean created this documentation to share. Which many, myself included, appreciate. Rarely in the DIY forum are projects documented as success or failures so long term. The pipes are inside an internal overflow box (Calfo coast-to-coast style as Bean said). When the return pump is turned off they will continue to siphon until that box is emptied to the point the siphon breaks. Then all drain flow will stop, and all 3 pipes will be full of air only. The siphon is restarted automatically when the return pump is turned back on. The throttled drain siphons on the same principles as a Carleson surge device. Bean has already explained how this happens. The throttled drain never gurgles because the siphon never breaks. In an ideal setup, that drain is set to handle (due to diameter restriction) 99% of the return pump's output. That way it can never completely empty the overflow box causing the siphon to break. The other 1% trickle is drained by the drain with a Durso (design that prevents a siphon). Dursos are quiet under low flow, but not when high water flow creates high air flow. The emergency 3rd drain may not ever be needed, and under normal conditions it will never see water. But if the Durso is EVER clogged and the emergency drain is not present, the tank WILL overflow.

The Durso's airline placement is well thought out as well. Nice work, Bean.

The worst part about this design is it will not work on a standard from the factory RR tank. The holes have to be self drilled or special ordered. Thanks again, Bean.

What have you tried to make the skimmer quiet? Is it the air draw on it making the noise?

[kimoyo]

This has to be one of the most disturbing threads I've seen in a while. Every idea in this thread was already worked out in the thread I posted from 2004. Bean even joined that discussion 3 months and 14 pages in.

Originally posted by kimoyo
Herbie's Silent Overflow System!
http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/sh...5&pagenumber=1

People were already even using/discussing 4 standpipes with Herbie's method because they had two overflows. The airline placement is not even close to being new. And the increase in pipe diameter, whatever!, done already and same principle. I myself have been using this method for 3 years now because of Herbie's thread. Making some CAD drawings and waiting 4 years later doesn't change who came up with the design.

BTW. The emergency drain was the main point of Herbie's method. Everyone please read the first 5 pages of the linked thread then reply to my post. Thank you.

[hebygb]

for those of us that have under 500 posts, we dont care who came up with the design... we only care for the fact that it has been brought back to the forefront and has nice, easy to view drawings that translate well to the exact pieces that are available in most hardware retailers. The purpose of this thread and ALL threads here is to share information.

"No... not 8-minute abs... 7- minutes... 8 minute abs is all wrong"

- Something About Mary

[GuySmilie]

This has to be one of the most disturbing threads I've seen in a while. Every idea in this thread was already worked out in the thread I posted from 2004. Bean even joined that discussion 3 months and 14 pages in.

So then, what you're inferring here is that once someone publishes a concept or process to improve the SOTA, then no one else can ever do so again? Guess we better all turn off the servers and go home because there is very little in this hobby that is new and truly innovative.

I followed the Herbie thread as well back then, and I don't recall either you or Herbie, or anyone else, for that matter, putting it all together in an understandable document with supporting (and concise) engineering notation.

I'm sorry that you are disturbed by this thread. Perhaps BeanAnimal will take pity with your torment and offer some sort of financial restitution to all those offended by such gross negligence......or, perhaps not!

[ClayWagner]

Whoops! I must've lost my "" face after "Not that I would"! Wow without that my post looked like an attack! I was completely and most certainly being facetious. In other words I aprove the design. I wanted to see pics so that I could set it up on my tank, ha! Because I hate gurgling...(not that this system is going to gurgle as it was interpreted). Sorry for the misunderstanding .

[cartman5579]

Bean, quick question...

Can you explain to me what you mean when you say that the bottom of the standpipe is submerged as well as the top? Are you saying the bottom of the three drains need to be submerged in the sump?

Can you explain where you have the 3 different drains going into your sysetm?

[kimoyo]

Originally posted by hebygb
we only care for the fact that it has been brought back to the forefront and has nice, easy to view drawings that translate well to the exact pieces that are available in most hardware retailers. The purpose of this thread and ALL threads here is to share information.

If thats all you wanted Bean could have saved some time and bumped the old thread and put all the easy to view drawings there.

Originally posted by GuySmilie
So then, what you're inferring here is that once someone publishes a concept or process to improve the SOTA, then no one else can ever do so again? Guess we better all turn off the servers and go home because there is very little in this hobby that is new and truly innovative.

I followed the Herbie thread as well back then, and I don't recall either you or Herbie, or anyone else, for that matter, putting it all together in an understandable document with supporting (and concise) engineering notation.

I'm sorry that you are disturbed by this thread. Perhaps BeanAnimal will take pity with your torment and offer some sort of financial restitution to all those offended by such gross negligence......or, perhaps not!

I was so truly befuddled by your wit it has left me silenced. You want engineering notation to make the concept understandable. The layman terms of Herbie was so difficult to understand and the immense display of engineering notation in this thread has made the concept understandable for you. I think your right, sometimes pictures help, hahah. Lets turn all the servers off and go home now, lol.

BTW I more than welcome the financial restitution, pm me and we can discuss an amount and where the check should be sent


So sorry, back to topic and so ends my comments here.

[MeuserReef]

Originally posted by kimoyo
This has to be one of the most disturbing threads I've seen in a while. Every idea in this thread was already worked out in the thread I posted from 2004. Bean even joined that discussion 3 months and 14 pages in.

People were already even using/discussing 4 standpipes with Herbie's method because they had two overflows. The airline placement is not even close to being new. And the increase in pipe diameter, whatever!, done already and same principle. I myself have been using this method for 3 years now because of Herbie's thread. Making some CAD drawings and waiting 4 years later doesn't change who came up with the design.

BTW. The emergency drain was the main point of Herbie's method. Everyone please read the first 5 pages of the linked thread then reply to my post. Thank you.

Well.... if the idea was so "revoultionary" back then and the "credit" was so important, then you (or Herbie) should have filed for a little thing called a "Patent".

I would like to thank Bean for the clear and concise breakdown of a good idea (regardless who "invented" it) for those of us NOT running this idea to ponder over. Personally, I like the idea of a DEAD SILENT overflow and, at the moment, dont have one! This thread helps to steer me torward some TESTED ways to change that.

[LoneRanger]

i too would love to see some pics of your system bean!


L.R.