Tunze nano mod

[jacmyoung]

Your da man skydancer, your da man! BTW is that your 300g tank in your avatar?

[mr pink floyd]

Ditto

[jacmyoung]

Originally posted by mr pink floyd
Ditto

Like skydancer said we are indebted to your good thinking.

Regarding your new proposal, I don't know if the crosshair is needed, unless you have observed closely to be so. Otherwise the fish screen is tight enough as the cover, what do you think?

[mr pink floyd]

well i think it would be neccesary, mainly to keep the impellar in the pump, im not home to see the pump now(vacation in florida, on laptop) so i cant see exact sizes, but im pretty sure the impellar would be able to shoot through the large hole left from cutting the outer tube off. Also to cover the hole a bit, which would be mostly cosmetic.

[skydancer]

Originally posted by jacmyoung
Your da man skydancer, your da man! BTW is that your 300g tank in your avatar?

Yep, that is my pride and joy... after a few other things... My 8 and 10 year olds...

[skydancer]

The power draw on the 6025 is the same as what I originally reported. 7 Watts. So the mod doesn't change the power draw, (as it shouldn't). All we're doing by modding it, is "unrestricting the water flow!!! Imagine that. The 6045 does that too for $30 more...
Below is the picture with the infamous HD 5-gal bucket and the modded 6025 fitted in there and the kill-a-watt on the forground...

[jacmyoung]

Originally posted by skydancer
Yep, that is my pride and joy... after a few other things... My 8 and 10 year olds...

That is one beautiful setup and fine workmanship! I was surprised your little ones didn't use the canopy as their landing pad. It will not survive in my house for a day

BTW if anyone hasn't tried the math, the increase of flow was close to 60%!

So both 6025 and 6045 have the same power draw.

I also followed p-deezy's info and checked the Tunze parts list, it seemed all the nanostream models have the same propeller unit, but different drive units. The front housings of the 6045 and 6055 are the same but different from that of 6025.

One more thing, skydancer, I know you have done more than asked for and we probably have enough data thanks to you, but I don't know if you can test your 6025 with the front cover of your 6045 on? It may offer some more assurance.

[mr pink floyd]

i would love to see the cover of a 6055, to see what can be modded on this

im sure theres some way to get the max flow, with a very low price, possibly combining onf of the 6055 drive units with a 6025 face cover, and doing the mod?

i hope people take this mod further, as im only in high school, dont have a job yet(turn 16 within the month() so i dont have the funds to support my reef and these other side projects

[jacmyoung]

Originally posted by mr pink floyd
well i think it would be neccesary, mainly to keep the impellar in the pump, im not home to see the pump now(vacation in florida, on laptop) so i cant see exact sizes, but im pretty sure the impellar would be able to shoot through the large hole left from cutting the outer tube off. Also to cover the hole a bit, which would be mostly cosmetic.

If that is the only reason then the fish screen will serve the purpose.

[mr pink floyd]

mine didnt come with the fish screen(i think your referring to the end cap that goes over the outside tube?)

and if this is the case, i wouldnt leave space for it to be clipped on(whole tube chopped off) and eventually it might pop off from being hit repeatedly

[jacmyoung]

Originally posted by mr pink floyd
mine didnt come with the fish screen(i think your referring to the end cap that goes over the outside tube?)

and if this is the case, i wouldnt leave space for it to be clipped on(whole tube chopped off) and eventually it might pop off from being hit repeatedly

I get what you are trying to do now.

[Reefer U.K.]

Really interesting, i have two 6045's, so tagging along.


cheers,

Pete.

P.S. i take it that this mod would also increase the flow of the 6045's in the same way.

[skydancer]

Originally posted by jacmyoung


So both 6025 and 6045 have the same power draw.

One more thing, skydancer, I know you have done more than asked for and we probably have enough data thanks to you, but I don't know if you can test your 6025 with the front cover of your 6045 on? It may offer some more assurance.

That would 've been a nice test but...
I don't have my two 6045s anymore. I returned them to PA for credit.

Power numbers:
I tested both of my 6045s when I had them and each pulled 6 watts.
The 6025 pulls 7 watts.

[E-A-G-L-E-S]

Originally posted by E-A-G-L-E-S
I just did the mod to one f my 6025's and it is pushing from 200-350gph more. That is about 26%-45% more flow for $0.00....
Thanks!

So i guessed 930-1080gph after mod....and was low

[jdoenumber2]

Anyone willing to share pics of their mods?

[spmedi]

I didnt take any pics, but I pulled out the dremmel and cut off the tube as pink described. Absolutely huge difference. Thanks.

I had the 2 streams in my 65 w/ another mj900 cause I wasn't getting as much flow and surface agitation as i wanted...Yeah I had to pull the mj out after this. I have a mixed reef and the extra mj was too much flow. I had to play around w/ the streams just to get them right. 1100 gph definitely feels about right. That is if what it was before was around 700.

I am now very happy I did this.

Also my pump would almost always, even before the mod, start the wrong direction. The correct themselves in under 2 seconds, but placing your hand in front of them helps. Still love the pumps regardless.

[jdoenumber2]

Wow i just did the mod and i am impressed. I see another thing i may try. I am thinking about slotting the underside to allow more water movement. With the shroud off i ran the motor and it had even more flow. I obviously will not run it uncovered however, I wonder if it is worthwhile to try and make a new shroud for the nanostream. I would make it so that there is less flow restrictions.

[jacmyoung]

Originally posted by jdoenumber2
Wow i just did the mod and i am impressed. I see another thing i may try. I am thinking about slotting the underside to allow more water movement. With the shroud off i ran the motor and it had even more flow. I obviously will not run it uncovered however, I wonder if it is worthwhile to try and make a new shroud for the nanostream. I would make it so that there is less flow restrictions.

And cut back the front nozzle as close to the sphere as possible then glue the screened cap on, that should make for a much wider flow pattern.

[jacmyoung]

I just did the cutback of the front nozzle, the flow has increased by the feel of my hand but I did not try to quantify, I will not be surprised if the flow is above 1200gph. The true benefit of this mod is a wider flow pattern. The fish screen is very tight no way the prop can get out, but I had to be very careful to put the screen on. The plastics on the pump are not heavy duty.

The downside of this mod is the pump can not self correct anymore because the prop could not shoot out all the way, it would be blocked by the fish screen, but since I never relied on self-correct so no big deal.

[jacmyoung]

duplicate

[kappaknight]

Do you have a pic?

[mr pink floyd]

cool, yea, as i said this woudlnt increase the flow much, more just to widen the flow, to keep things a bit closer

please gets pics

[Malifluous]

Yeah love to see a pic of one with the front cut off

[joeychitwood]

Here is a photo of my modification. I cut the "tunnel" back to the housing on the outlet piece of the Nano using a Dremel tool.

[jacmyoung]

Come to think of, if we manage to cut the front back even more the flow may increase more. I noticed when the shroud was taken off the flow was much larger than even after the mod.

The appearance did not change much: