Reef nutrition

Plumbing Design for IM40

fishy408

fishy408

Supporting Member
BARcard
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.

CA6D8187-D0A6-4D0D-9A26-6E7205E1BA07.png
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
fishy408 said:
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
Click to expand...
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?
 
richiev said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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

1677862251963.png
 
fishy408 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
fishy408 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.

1677880998950.png
 
Last edited:
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.

​

 
Patio said:
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.

​

Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
richiev said:
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.
Click to expand...

I see heat/cost as the two main draw backs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top