| DIY Aquarium Projects For those that are handy or looking to save some money, discuss your DIY aquarium projects here. |  | |
07-24-2006, 03:49 PM
|
#1 (permalink)
| | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Sacramento, CA, USA
Posts: 5,208
iTrader Positive Rating: 100% Plant Points: 227345 | Continuous Water Change System On another thread we have been discussing our water change systems, and Brian's (bpimm) system aroused my interest in applying a similar system to my 45 gallon tank, which some day I will get set up. Like Brian, my tank has a drilled overflow hole in the upper right back corner, so I can install an overflow as he did. But, I have to use city water, which may have chloramine in it. My idea to "autodose" Prime is to use a sealed two gallon holding container, where I would dose about 10 times the amount of Prime needed for the two gallons of new water. Then as that water goes to the tank, incoming water would dilute what is left in the holding container, and in 24 hours it would be just about what is needed just for 2 gallons, at which time I add another slug of Prime. Because the holding container would be sealed, the incoming water would slightly pressurize it driving water up to the aquarium rim to drip into the aquarium, and any excess would overflow thru the drilled hole overflow pipe.
An added advantage of the holding tank is that the incoming water has to cross my very hot second floor deck to get to my aquarium, so it will be hot water when it gets to the holding tank. But, it will have a chance to cool off before going into the aquarium. In the winter, the opposite will happen.
By my calculations if I run incoming water at about 4 drops per second I will have replaced half of the water in the aquarium in a week - perfect for EI dosing.
Am I overlooking anything here? Has anyone else tried the holding container idea, and dosed Prime like that? What disaster awaits me????  |
| |
07-24-2006, 04:44 PM
|
#2 (permalink)
| | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 188
Plant Points: 12290 | If you're chloramine remover goes stale, your tank is done for. You mihgt get away with adding the dechlor to your fert dosing mix. |
| |
07-25-2006, 10:23 AM
|
#3 (permalink)
| | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Washougal, Washington
Posts: 610
iTrader Positive Rating: 100% Plant Points: 28118 | From another thread, Quote: |
Originally Posted by Naja002 Carbon filters do not remove chloramines. "Super-Activated" carbon will, but it breaks it down into chlorine and ammonia---the ammonia remains free.... |
Let me start out by saying I am no chemist or biologist and my planted tank knowledge is dated so this idea comes from a non scientific, rusty brain so correct me where I'm wrong, and forgive me if I'm way out in left field picking daises.
If I understand this right the only output after a "Super-Activated" carbon filter would be ammonia.
Ammonia below 7.0 PH is in the form of ammonium.
Ammonium is the preferred form of nitrogen for plants.
depending on the quantity of ammonia released from the breakdown of the chloramines wouldn't this just be a supplemental source of ferts for the plants, assuming that the levels are low and the PH is maintained below 7.0?
Brian
Last edited by bpimm : 07-25-2006 at 08:51 PM.
|
| |
07-26-2006, 11:04 AM
|
#4 (permalink)
| | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Washougal, Washington
Posts: 610
iTrader Positive Rating: 100% Plant Points: 28118 | I found a couple articles that tend to support my theory.
This one even mentions the plants can handle the ammonia skepticalaquarist.com
heavy testing for reef keepers shows that carbon does remove most of the chloramine http://www.reefkeeping.com |
| |
07-26-2006, 11:55 AM
|
#5 (permalink)
| | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Sacramento, CA, USA
Posts: 5,208
iTrader Positive Rating: 100% Plant Points: 227345 | The chloramine issue isn't an easy one to get a handle on. For a continuous water change system the flow rate involved is so low it appears that a carbon filter would be effective. But, when I read about the various carbon filters available I can't determine how well they will work at such low flow rates, how long before replacing the filter element is necessary - they do breed bacteria - and how well they handle chloramine vs. chlorine. The only problem I see from introducing a steady, but low level of ammonia is possible algae blooms being triggered. But, since this would not be a fluctuating input the algae spores might not chose to "hatch".
Seachem doesn't seem too enthralled with my idea for dosing a holding container with a big overdose of Prime, then letting that get diluted as the change water cycles thru the holding container. I understand their concerns, so I probably will go with a filter of some kind instead. However I don't want to have to spend $300 for the filter and $100 each for monthly filter element replacements, so I really want to visit my local Ace Hardware and find something that fits my bank account better.
This is part of the fun of DIY though - the design decision process! |
| |
07-26-2006, 12:43 PM
|
#6 (permalink)
| | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Washougal, Washington
Posts: 610
iTrader Positive Rating: 100% Plant Points: 28118 | Quote: |
Originally Posted by hoppycalif The chloramine issue isn't an easy one to get a handle on. For a continuous water change system the flow rate involved is so low it appears that a carbon filter would be effective. But, when I read about the various carbon filters available I can't determine how well they will work at such low flow rates, how long before replacing the filter element is necessary - they do breed bacteria - and how well they handle chloramine vs. chlorine. The only problem I see from introducing a steady, but low level of ammonia is possible algae blooms being triggered. But, since this would not be a fluctuating input the algae spores might not chose to "hatch".
Seachem doesn't seem too enthralled with my idea for dosing a holding container with a big overdose of Prime, then letting that get diluted as the change water cycles thru the holding container. I understand their concerns, so I probably will go with a filter of some kind instead. However I don't want to have to spend $300 for the filter and $100 each for monthly filter element replacements, so I really want to visit my local Ace Hardware and find something that fits my bank account better.
This is part of the fun of DIY though - the design decision process! |
There are some cartridge units for ice makers that just screw inline, that may be a place to start. just set up a slow flow and test for chloramine. there was a Hach test kit mentioned in the second article but I didn't look it up figuring it would be spendy. Maybe there is a less expensive kit available somewhere.
(EDIT) It's not as bad as I thought it's $60.00 + shipping. |
| |
07-26-2006, 08:06 PM
|
#7 (permalink)
| | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Malaysia
Posts: 177
Plant Points: 9370 | Just a thought, can a whole house carbon filter block help in Cl removal ? It is a cylinder shape solid black carbon filter media for household use. Available in ACE.
They are cheap nowadays and require not much water pressure to go thru. I did the pH test before and after the carbon block now and then, the reading is different even after months.
I am a bit skeptical about the dosing part. There is no monitoring system installed. The running cost (anti-Cl dosing) would be much higher than weekly water change. |
| |
07-26-2006, 09:16 PM
|
#8 (permalink)
| | Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Sacramento, CA, USA
Posts: 5,208
iTrader Positive Rating: 100% Plant Points: 227345 | The point of a continuous water change system is to eliminate the weekly drudgery of changing water, not saving money. It certainly doesn't save any money. I'm getting more and more interested in the carbon filters, especially the carbon block type. But, I'm still thinking about the ammonia being released. I suppose a two stage filter, with an ammonia absorbing media in the second stage would solve that, but I haven't looked into that yet.
I'm also wondering if a pressure regulator is really needed. The flow control needle valve seems to be all that is required, and I can get that pretty cheaply. I'm not sure how well a regulator would work for continuous drops per second flow rates, but I also wonder if a needle valve would survive that very long. |
| |
07-27-2006, 05:27 AM
|
#9 (permalink)
| | Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Maple Grove, MN
Posts: 728
iTrader Positive Rating: 100% Plant Points: 17500 | If you get an RO unit the issue of using Prime goes away plus you get all the many benefits of RO water. I love my RO unit. Best purchase ever. |
| |
07-27-2006, 07:43 AM
|
#10 (permalink)
| | Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Washougal, Washington
Posts: 610
iTrader Positive Rating: 100% Plant Points: 28118 | Quote: |
Originally Posted by hoppycalif I'm also wondering if a pressure regulator is really needed. The flow control needle valve seems to be all that is required, and I can get that pretty cheaply. I'm not sure how well a regulator would work for continuous drops per second flow rates, but I also wonder if a needle valve would survive that very long. | I use the regulator because when I was just doing one tank I used drip irrigation emitters to control the flow, they are pretty crude and can't handle much pressure. and the side benefit is I could use the regulator for fine control. also all of my feed line is just airline tubing, I don,t think I want to try 80PSI in that stuff (Can you say water weenie).
The regulator I use came from a hydroponics shop it wasn't that expensive as I remember it. |
| |  | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:29 PM. |