Plumbing Design for IM40

[fishy408]

After doing some reading, and copying other designs I came up with this. All of the pvc/pipes have been ordered, wanted to check with the experts before putting it together.

• The ball valve on the return is for a future manifold if needed.
• The two ball valves will allow me to remove the UV for maintenance if needed.
• Varios 6 should have enough power to for this small setup with quite a bit of elbows on the return.

 

[H2OPlayar]

There are a few bends on the right that look like they could be removed. Try to draw the straightest line possible from the pump to the inlets on the tank. I would drain the UV directly back into the sump for simplicity and to make it easier to remove in the future if you want. See if 45's can be used to reduce head loss around pipe bends, but I get the appeal of 90's to keep the plumbing moving in a straight line.

Edit: Agree with KR, a dedicated pump to the UV is best.

 

[Kensington Reefer]

Simplicity is key
I would run UV with its own pump

 

[Srt4eric]

I 100% agree with @H2OPlayar @Kensington Reefer. UVs require a certain flow rate. Give it it's own pump that matches manufacturers specs and dump the uv return right back into the sump.

 

[richiev]

After doing some reading, and copying other designs I came up with this. All of the pvc/pipes have been ordered, wanted to check with the experts before putting it together.

• The ball valve on the return is for a future manifold if needed.
• The two ball valves will allow me to remove the UV for maintenance if needed.
• Varios 6 should have enough power to for this small setup with quite a bit of elbows on the return.

View attachment 45703

On the uv, I too found it simpler to just run a separate cheap jebao pump and dump in the sump. That being said, with this setup, why would water go through the uv at all? If that main line is open, isn't all the water going to just skip the uv completely and go up the return?

 

[fishy408]

On the uv, I too found it simpler to just run a separate cheap jebao pump and dump in the sump. That being said, with this setup, why would water go through the uv at all? If that main line is open, isn't all the water going to just skip the uv completely and go up the return?

If I remember correctly the layout of the UV is what the manufacturer suggested on their diagram-install (but I have a bad memory so could be mistaken). The ball valve between the the two tees are set to block, forcing water through the UV.

 

[CaseyP]

Either separate as suggested, or put the UV inline with only one of the returns after it tees off. Seems much easier to dial in the UV flow depending on what you're targeting.

 

[fishy408]

I hate plumbing btw

 

[H2OPlayar]

I 100% agree with @H2OPlayar @Kensington Reefer. UVs require a certain flow rate. Give it it's own pump that matches manufacturers specs and dump the uv return right back into the sump.

And I hear this guy knows a real plumber

 

[fishy408]

Looking at the new implementation of the Reef Ready System at Innovative Marine and I noticed that all of their EXT models have ball valves on the return. What do you guys think about the design? In most cases I have seen unions in most builds

 

[richiev]

Looking at the new implementation of the Reef Ready System at Innovative Marine and I noticed that all of their EXT models have ball valves on the return. What do you guys think about the design? In most cases I have seen unions in most builds

View attachment 45750

There's one line coming out of the pump leading to two separate returns. If you want to try and get equal amounts of flow from both sides you'd need at least one valve. Two gives more varied control.

 

[SupraSaltyReefer]

Looking at the new implementation of the Reef Ready System at Innovative Marine and I noticed that all of their EXT models have ball valves on the return. What do you guys think about the design? In most cases I have seen unions in most builds

View attachment 45750

These ball valves act as unions as well since they can be unscrewed. IMO I think they should be gate valves so it’ll allow finer tuning of the flow, but considering how expensive gate valves are nowadays I’m not surprised IM decided to go with ball valves.

Also a 57w UV is overkill for a 40g tank. I’d recommend the 24w UV instead. As others have mentioned run it on a separate DC pump so you can control the flow.

 

[fishy408]

I have always read to run different flow rates for battling algae/protozoa. I am trying to understand why, so I did a little reading and came up with these thoughts. My thinking could be totally off base, but I am assuming based on the below chart.

Theory is @642 GPH a 57 Watt/40 watt UV sterilizer should be able to battle both algae/protozoa where a 8 watt - 25watt can not due to protozoa in the 90,000 uw/cm2 range.

• @642 GPH - a classic 8 watt is sufficient for algae.
• @642 GPH - a classic 57 watt should be at least equivalent to a 8 watt.
• @1066 GPH - a class 57 watt or @967 GPH 40 Watt is efficient against most protozoa on the chart, so @642 (more contact time) both 40watt/57watt can battle both algae/protozoa.

Downside of oversized skimmer.

• Heat
• Cost

For the IM 40L tank with 22g sump,

• @642 GPH would be approximately 10x turnover. 57 watt UV would work for both algae/protozoa.
• @400 GPH would be approximately 6.5x turnover, 25 watt UV would work for both algae/protozoa.

 

[Patio]

I worry about the amount of heat a 57w bulb will add to 40-60 total volume of water. Maybe it is not a real worry and your heater just turns on less?

A really big skimmer like the Regal 250INT 10" runs on 35-70 watts.

​

 

[fishy408]

I worry about the amount of heat a 57w bulb will add to 40-60 total volume of water. Maybe it is not a real worry and your heater just turns on less?

A really big skimmer like the Regal 250INT 10" runs on 35-70 watts.

​

I am worried about the heat as well. I had to sell the Regal 250, because it physically didn't fit into the sump. The 57 watt is what I have on hand, the better option would definitely be the 25 watt.

Oddly enough, with a quick check, both the 57w and 25 w have the same dimensions: 20" L x 3.75" W x 6" H

 

[richiev]

Also keep in mind a big UV implies a big UV bulb which implies more expense every 6 months. They also are taking up more space which is important on smaller footprint stands.

In theory you can just run the higher strength for less of the day, but that's another thing to deal with.

 

[RandyC]

https://www.bareefers.org/forum/threads/tank-journal-no-tank.23973/post-351214

 

[fishy408]

https://www.bareefers.org/forum/threads/tank-journal-no-tank.23973/post-351214

Ich = 280,000 uws/cm2. Manufacturer's chart only covers 90,000 uws/cm2, unfortunately common issues like ich requires so much more than 90,000 us/cm2.

 

[fishy408]

Also keep in mind a big UV implies a big UV bulb which implies more expense every 6 months. They also are taking up more space which is important on smaller footprint stands.

In theory you can just run the higher strength for less of the day, but that's another thing to deal with.

I see heat/cost as the two main draw backs.

 

[RandyC]

Ich = 280,000 uws/cm2. Manufacturer's chart only covers 90,000 uws/cm2, unfortunately common issues like ich requires so much more than 90,000 us/cm2.

Just have to extrapolate from the table they give you.

https://www.bareefers.org/forum/threads/tank-journal-no-tank.23973/post-351221

For example, Aqua Ultraviolet, a Classic 57W would probably put 300 GPH at ~320,000 uw/cm2.