I had to buy an adapter to convert from metric to standard. It was a hassle to figure out, but I wound up replacing the barbed fitting that attaches to the bottom of the tank with a fitting I got at Neptune aquatics. HTHThe return pipe is similar in that it has two barbs with the larger of the two being very close to this one but I couldn’t find any tubing that will work for both ends. I’m sure it’s a metric thing since it’s a Red Sea tank.
I’m in no way disagreeing, but how are you sure about the proportional to length part?Yes, it’s to allow use with different tubing sizes. I wouldn’t (and I don’t on mine) bother cutting the smaller part off, though you can. It is a common misconception that having a short narrower part will significantly restrict flow, but like Mike said it will be minimal. The increased resistance to flow due to a narrower part is proportional to the length of the narrowing, which in this case is very short compared to all the tubing, so basically negligible.
Unfortunately, Poiseuille’s law only applies well to laminar flow where the length is substantially larger than the cross section.It’s fluid dynamics physics- Poiseuille’s law. Resistance of a tube (or part of a tube) to flowing liquid is proportional to viscosity and length, inversely proportional to radius to the fourth power:
View attachment 14418
And resistance overall is additive, so you add the resistance for each part of the pipe for the total resistance.
So when radius decreases by half, resistance for that part goes up a lot- 16 fold, but only over that length.
Example: Say you have 1 inch of half-diameter pipe, followed by 99 inches of regular diameter pipe. Compared with 100 inches of regular diameter (forget the units, just relative):
All regular diameter: R ~ 100
1” of half-diameter: R ~ 115 (99+16)
So it’s 15% more resistance, which isn’t really negligible, but but it’s not as much as what a lot of people imagine. Also, we aren’t dealing with straight horizontal pipes; we also have bends in the pipe adding more resistance, and most importantly gravity. These combine to give the head pressure we are pushing against. But viscosity n of saltwater is very low, so the overall amount of resistance to flow in a horizontal pipe is a lot less of a factor than gravity when we are pumping up. So we are talking about a <15% increase in the relatively small fraction of head pressure that is due to resistance.
Water flow through a properly sized return pipe is laminar flow where the length is significantly greater than diameter, so this IS the best way to look at it. That’s why I described this law among the many other much more minor factors that contribute to the situation.Unfortunately, Poiseuille’s law only applies well to laminar flow where the length is substantially larger than the cross section.
Think of that law working well when the dominant loss is surface friction.
This case is WAY harder to calculate.
You would have to check out equations on flow through nozzles and orifices I think.
... it has been too long since college for me though.
I tend to agree that it is probably no big deal to leave that small section in.
But it is so trivial to remove, and it does matter at least a little bit, so why not?
Sorry, I was talking about the small fitting, not the pipe. See first post in thread.Water flow through a properly sized return pipe is laminar flow where the length is significantly greater than diameter, so this IS the best way to look at it. That’s why I described this law among the many other much more minor factors that contribute to the situation.
The whole point I’m trying to make is that the weakest link/bottleneck way of looking at it isn’t correct, even though it makes intuitive sense to most people.
Me tooSorry, I was talking about the small fitting, not the pipe. See first post in thread.
Me too
The focal decrease in diameter does not cause it to stop being laminar flow. For this to happen, it would need to transition to turbulent flow, which does generate much more resistance but only happens at much greater degrees of narrowing. For the range of narrowing we are considering, the flow would just increase velocity over the narrower part but remain laminar.
The other way to look at this that might make more sense is how in general we don’t worry about the inside diameter being smaller in barbed fittings (even without various sizes). The inside of the fitting is significantly smaller diameter than the inner diameter of the tubing, but it doesn’t cause any noticeable problems, just a very slight increase in overall resistance. Similarly, we don’t worry about nozzles which are intentionally narrowing to increase velocity, but also slightly increase resistance.
Well, that was a lovely detour.
It turn out that 1” tubing fits over this barb but is not as tight as I would like. Some suggested zip ties. I’m sure traditional metal hose clamps are out of the question since this end will be in the water.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk