Who is building these sumps?

RiaanP

Moderator
Joined
11 Aug 2008
Posts
25,877
Reaction score
2,079
Location
Centurion
Who is building these sumps?
They are an old design. Outdated and for the technology of the nineties. I find them all over this site.
My old
109448b14aa501b00.jpg


also Peterjoh
134149342ace130f0.jpg


and Genesis
 

Rod

Joined
18 May 2007
Posts
329
Reaction score
2
Location
Krugersdorp Gauteng
And the new technology is? Can you show us the right way for 2009? I am very interested.
 

dallasg

Moderator
Joined
14 Dec 2008
Posts
16,850
Reaction score
613
Location
Sandton
i think he means with DSB's etc
 

Kanga

Retired Moderator
Joined
7 May 2007
Posts
4,576
Reaction score
23
Location
In the Koeberg blast radius
I here you Riaan, the problem is that the Modern marine aquarium is not such an old concept, secondly( and this is just my opinion) in a FO petshop scenario where the are sudden huge increases n bioload (when wish are unpacked) this type of filter actually deal quite well with these increases in such a short period. A DSB however takes more time to adjust.

SO accompanied by the fact that most guys dont really want to know more, plus the fact that the DSB is a relatively recent development and this system works forthem they assume its the best for the home aquarium as well.

Having said that it annoying that they catch guys with this type of sump. It truly is not what we need.
 
Joined
7 Mar 2008
Posts
639
Reaction score
5
Location
Kimberley
Yip, also had to mod mine and still is not satisfied... Will get one build for my needs when I upgrade the tank later this year.
 

jacquesb

Retired Moderator
Joined
29 May 2007
Posts
17,868
Reaction score
71
Location
Cape Town
You are correct Dallas - Rod - I think that Riaan is referring to the suggested way of having a sump with only 3 partitions, where one partition is for the skimmer, the second for the DSB and the 3rd partition for the return pump....

Riaan - these sumps' design is not specifically incorrect - it is just the bio-balls and ceramic noodles that come from the fresh water mind-set. This used to be OK with FISH ONLY systems of the past - but in the era where keeping corals is MUCH more of a norm, high nutrient levels is not acceptable anymore.
With the sump designs as you have pictured, there ware always issues with nitrates and phosphates being high - and as I said - with FISH ONLY, this is not a problem.....
 
Joined
10 Sep 2007
Posts
9,395
Reaction score
26
Location
Centurion
hi riaan, i know exotics build their sumps like that, didn't you have a similar sump with your old tank?
 

RiaanP

Moderator
Joined
11 Aug 2008
Posts
25,877
Reaction score
2,079
Location
Centurion
Yes, rather a DSB.
Also fitting a proper skimmer into a 170mm gap? But I see that a reeftek TS2 does fit.
And bio-balls and ceramic rings...

But I do understand now. It is OK for Fish Only tanks.

Yes Lanzo, first pic is my old sump.
 

RiaanP

Moderator
Joined
11 Aug 2008
Posts
25,877
Reaction score
2,079
Location
Centurion
Nope Lanzo
But I see that Kylestanley fitted a ts2 into the last chamber. And looking at his thread, it is a tight fit. from his post:
141449678423c3e69.jpg
 

Tobes

Retired Moderator
Joined
30 Nov 2007
Posts
9,482
Reaction score
119
Location
A Beautiful place!
I also had a sump like this, and in my opinion they are stupid for the following reasons.
1. Can't have a decent DSB
2. It is not maintenance friendly - to work in it is difficult.
3. It restricts evaporation
4. You lose the effectiveness of the light for growing macro algae because of the drops and salt creep and damp on the inside of the top glass - needs to be cleaned nearly daily
5. You can't put a biggish in-sump skimmer
6. They are stupid
7. They are stupid
8. They are stupid

Just my opinion :p
 
Joined
10 Sep 2007
Posts
9,395
Reaction score
26
Location
Centurion
Nope Lanzo
But I see that Kylestanley fitted a ts2 into the last chamber. And looking at his thread, it is a tight fit. from his post:
141449678423c3e69.jpg
i had a look at his tank, and it is looking good, yip that ts2 is in a tight spot, but it gets the job done:thumbup:
 

Mekaeel

Moderator
Joined
8 May 2007
Posts
24,226
Reaction score
129
Location
Point Waterfront Durban
Joined
19 Mar 2010
Posts
1,107
Reaction score
8
Location
East Rand
Riaan, I notice your sand to be relatively deep in comparison to the setup I have put together. OK so I am only using a smaller 2ft tank but the concept and principle is identical. One a scale of relative depth, you appear to be running about 1/3 sand to water, based o the appearance of that, should I add more sand because I have about a 1/5 depth ratio. all things considered, how far below the sand surface level does "activity" get to? That would be the real question I guess.
 

RiaanP

Moderator
Joined
11 Aug 2008
Posts
25,877
Reaction score
2,079
Location
Centurion
Riaan, I notice your sand to be relatively deep in comparison to the setup I have put together.
Actually not.
See that short piece of glass inside the sand. That is 100mm high. My sand is at 150mm. The sump is only 360 high. So it is misleading. And then 50mm is sunken behind the bottom part of the stand.

If you use playsand, then the ideal depth is 150mm.
From about 100mm down that is the an-aerobic area. Deeper than 150mm do not provide any additional benefit. Using coarser material, yes then it should be deeper. Can even use marbles, but then it should be 1m or more deep. It is about the particle size and the combined surface area it provide for the bacteria to live on.
 

Top