I need everyone's input/suggestions...

R

reefman23

New Member
Well, now that i am almost done with the stand for my new setup (20g L with 20H sump/fuge), im starting to consider what to do with the 20 gallon H that i planned on using as a sump/fuge.

I was originally considering something like this ---> http://www.melevsreef.com/acrylics/sump ... del_m.html

My question is WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK IS THE BEST THING TO DO WITH THIS TANK?
Is the 20H the best option for a DIY sump/fuge?
Should I have cheato/caulpera?
What else should I have down there?
How much flow?
What pump should I use?
Do I use glass baffles in a glass tank or acrylic baffles?

I have studied melevsreef.com heavily as well as other well-known sites, but i value the experience/opinions of the members of this site. I would like to have the skimmer down there, too ( a bakpak 2r). The only thing that I know for sure i want to use is the compact fluorescent spotlight that is featured on melevsreef.com. Everything else is open to...actually waiting for...your opinions.

I plan on keeping zoas, lps, maybe a clam. I will have the light that is currently on my 16 gallon... 70 watt astralux MH 14,000k and 2x40 watt 50/50 pc's.
 
D

drty811

New Member
reefman,

is the tank your talking about a 20h or 20 regular? a 20 regular would work better or even a 15g, they both have the same foot print. as for algaes either one will work, IMO caulpera thats just what i like, grows really fast. when i get to much of it i sell it back to the LFS. :mrgreen: you should have sand, somewhat of a DSB, LR and some critters if you want. from what i have gathered and what ppl have told me , your flow should be minimal near the bottom but desent on top. once the algae starts to grow it will slow the current down, which is no biggy. pump, use whatever pump you prefer. and last but not least......acrylic baffles.....is easier to handle and cut......HTH
 
Dickie52

Dickie52

New Member
One thing I like that melev doesn't do is have as much surface area as I can for my algae. I like to have sand and rock as well. I agree with you, most people don't give their fuges enough quality light.

I can see you are a master of DIY, so you will be able to figure out how many baffels and where they go, when you decide what gear you will have in it. Be sure to plan on the extra water, when the power goes off. I was 1/2" off on my last fuge..... :lol:

I use 20 highs for my fuges on all but one tank and that has a 20 long on it. If I had it to do over, all of them would have the 20 long.....

I have both macro algae in my fuges

The cheato is by far much less trouble. The caulpera looks nice and grows well, but when it has a problem, it turns to gunk in a hurry......
 
R

reefman23

New Member
well the tank i am considering using measures 24"Lx12"Wx16 1/2"T...i think that is a standard 20 actually. So i my main tank will be a 20L and minimal flow is preferred, is 200 gph through the fuge good? Ive heard 5-10x the volume of the main tank per hour.
 
skipm

skipm

Moderator
Staff member
You mentioned a compact fluorescent spotlight that is on melevsreef, do you have a link for it?
 
M

mikeguerrero

Active Member
Reefman,

I read up on those lights and have a hard time understanding the concept of 75 watts of power, yet only draw 19 watts?

I have a 20 gallon Oceanic sump and I tried growing cheato and calerpa with my 18 watt mini compact from coralife; I used the 10,000 k bulbs.

I however, never got the stuff to grow or take off, it just sat in my sump for about 3 months with no visible growth; it however never died nor did it turn to gunk.

This is when I discovered I was having major nitrate problems at 25 ppm. So I did a lot of research at RC and Nano-reef and learned that it's not just the lighting that makes the macro grow.

You need correct water flow so the macros can absorp the nutrients and lighting time 12 hours vs 24 hours. Macro will grow under minimal light as many LFS have told me and I've seen there fuges.

I'm in the process of either getting the light with 5100 k, or another 18 watt coralife but with 6700 k bulbs instead or even the 24 inch 65 watt coralife fixture that is also 6700 k.

I really like the 24 inch fixture but I'm stalling since the light would spread over to an area that has no macros, it would be a quarter of the light; so I think it would be a waste or grow diatoms or sludge algae on my large return pump.

The benefits is I can get it for 55 dollars brand new from my LFS. So I'm trying to figure out should I just get the spotlight 51K and build it myself or go with this fixture?

Mike G
 
R

reefman23

New Member
well, i think that the 19 watts= 75 watts thing is that you are getting the 75 watts of light that an incandescent bulb while actually using only 19 watts because it is a much more efficient lamp. I liked them because i read peoples testimonials about them and it seems the spectrum is just right and people seem to have increased growth with them.

Speaking of the proper flow rate...is there any rule of thumb or calculation for this?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I don't think there is a formula you can use to calculate what you need for a flow rate. I think your going to have to trial and error it, because of all the potential variables. If it were simply a case of biologic filtration you would want to keep it low say 5- 10x. But from the design of the sump in that link, and your comments, it seems that your looking at mechanical, chemical and protein skimming as well and then you need to consider how much flow it will take to keep the suspended detritus flowing into the system for quick removal. Then there is always the issue of power heads - how many do you want in the tank??? using a huge flow rate can reduce the need for supplimental in display pumps. I like the design of that sump in your link but not completely - it has issues one it says right in the ad about water volume. In designing your own a few things to consider - i read in a post somewhere that Calfo recomends that the skimmer be the first place the water hits - even before the filter sock or sponge that you will use for mechanical filtration and after a lot of thought i think i agree with him - it makes sense. another thing we talked about in a dif post is if this is a sump (ie below the main tank) - then there will be a pump between the fuge and the display which neglates much of the transfer of plankton. I am currently designing in my head what i hope to be the "ultimate" frag tank that will acually be three tanks in one. There will be a sump for housekeeping and plumbing (huge flow) and a fuge for "natural" processes to occur (very low flow) in that will be above the display (well in my case at the same level) - you may want to think about that if it is a possibility in your new design. Keep the post coming - i have a ton of ideas in my head about my new system and will be watching closely to see your final product. :)
 
R

reefman23

New Member
20 LONG

First Area:Live rock rubble where there drain tube from tank is entering the fuge, and my bak pak 2r. Measures approximately 6"Lx12"Wx12"T.

Second area: This will serve as the main refugium area. 2" to 3" live sand, a couple more pounds of live rock rubble, cheato, any necessary inverts. Measures approximately 16"Lx12"Wx12"T.

Third area This will be the return area. Just the return pump that will be between 150 to 200 gph with a 4 foot head. Measures approximately 8"Lx12"Wx12"T.

Any additions or things you guys would change?


**EDIT** Actually, what I had in mind was something like this fuge i just found http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showt ... genumber=1
 
R

reefman23

New Member
I read that post from beginning to end...wow. well it looks as if calfo suggests higher flow than most others do, as well as getting the cheato rolling around with a dynamic flow. I think that i will use some of those ideas. I am also considering not using sand in the fuge at all now.
 
skipm

skipm

Moderator
Staff member
Yeah, I noticed alot of his recommendations differ from what all of us have been saying/taught. Thats part of the reason I posted the link just to give all of us some new insight into refugiums.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
i had a little time this morning so i was reading through that post as well and i think calfo hit it on the head what i was trying to say in my post. You have to decide what the function of this "fuge/sump/scrubber" really is before you can design it. One tank can't do it all and hence my three tank system idea............. Of course he says it better.....

anyway here is the spot that Calfos talks about what i'm refering to:

Wayne et al. have really "hit the nail on the head" so to speak: some of the things we seek to achieve in refugiums are difficult if possible to achieve to the same/highest level(s) at the same time.

Although we can enjoy numerous and simultaneous benefits from most any type of system - high/low flow, coarse/fine substrates, deep or shallow beds, lit/unlit, etc. - we really must focus on some primary goals and accept the compromises on other aspects.

You can imagine some really neat refugium styles/applications that are truly incompatible with each other: settling chamber or turf algae system? [slow versus high flow]... amphipod factory or, hmmm... spaghetti worm fetish? [coarse versus fine substrates]... Gracilaria farm or cryptic refugium [high versus low light].

Again... need to worry about a strict "rule" for flow No such rule exists.

In the case of Chaeto and Gracilaria, moderate to high flow and perhaps tumbling of the matter will not harm but likely help the colony. No more, no less

kindly,

Anthony"


just more to think about :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top