"Not good for sps tanks"
That make no sense. My 120 no baffle sump with Tunze ato and 10g bashsea.
I ran this from frags to full sps before I took it down after 34 months. My evaporation was 2g's a day. Check my build thread.
DIY sump question
- Thread starter luapinicap
- Start date
- Tagged users None
That make no sense. My 120 no baffle sump with Tunze ato and 10g bashsea.
I ran this from frags to full sps before I took it down after 34 months. My evaporation was 2g's a day. Check my build thread.
Chrisv.
2500 Club Member
I'm really surprised to see so many votes for no baffles.
It's not that difficult to install two panes of glass in a sump. It will take $25 in glass + silicone and take like...3 minutes to glue them in place. Unless I'm missing something, there is essentially no disadvantage to having an independent return pump chamber. The advantage comes in increased stability of parameters, better and more consistent performance of your skimmer, and a bubble trap to reduce bubbles in the display/plumbing.
The "it's easier not to do a thing that takes a few minutes to do" argument is strange to me.
I mean, reef tanks are one project after another. It's not exactly a hobby that lends itself to "easier." Of course it can be done...but...why?
It's not that difficult to install two panes of glass in a sump. It will take $25 in glass + silicone and take like...3 minutes to glue them in place. Unless I'm missing something, there is essentially no disadvantage to having an independent return pump chamber. The advantage comes in increased stability of parameters, better and more consistent performance of your skimmer, and a bubble trap to reduce bubbles in the display/plumbing.
The "it's easier not to do a thing that takes a few minutes to do" argument is strange to me.
I mean, reef tanks are one project after another. It's not exactly a hobby that lends itself to "easier." Of course it can be done...but...why?
Because its simple and it works.
Chrisv.
2500 Club Member
But...not as well!
Ya know run your systems the way you want. It it does work as well as I have run baffle system and after 30+ years a no baffle system works better, imo, than a baffle system.
I was giving the OP an option that is simple and works.
My 45 frsg system with no baffles.
Chrisv.
2500 Club Member
Ya know run your systems the way you want. It it does work as well as I have run baffle system and after 30+ years a no baffle system works better, imo, than a baffle system.
I was giving the OP an option that is simple and works.
My 45 frsg system with no baffles.
What about it works better? I'm genuinely trying to understand your position here.
I've only been doing this for 26 years, so you have me beat with 30 years...if that's what's important to you. I do not doubt that your tank now looks better than your tank a decade ago. Mine does too.
Do you really attribute your undeniable success to using a sump without baffles?
My position is simple but you just dont get it.
No I dont attribute success from it thats just plain stupid.
My tanks looked as good a decade ago so?
As you know their is more to successful reefing than a sump with or without baffles.
Last time, I was giving the OP an option that has worked well for me and makes servicing a sump simple.
You are not trying to understand or you would have already got it.
Your 26 vs 30 year comment proves it.
Again their are many ways to run a sump I was just giving the OP an option.
Reef on brother its all good.
If you reply you still dont get it.
Chrisv.
2500 Club Member
You ok?
You explicitly said in your last post that this is better. I only asked WHY it's better.
My 26 vs 30 comment was meant to point out how childish it sounds to drop how many years a person has been doing this.
Since this is about the OP, and not you or I, I return to the question: why do you feel this method is BETTER, which was your word, not mine.
As far as the "if you reply you still don't get it" comment, YES. I DON'T GET IT. I'm asking for the rationale behind your opinion, which is directly relevant to this thread. Please, explain it to us.
Hope you are doing ok over there.
This is your quote.
"The advantage comes in increased stability of parameters, better and more consistent performance of your skimmer, and a bubble trap to reduce bubbles in the display/plumbing".
This is stupid and not true at all except for the bubbles but that has never been an issue in my baffless systems.
Either way is as stable as it gets in this hobby.
I said it was better, imo, because it is easier to service a sump with no baffles after running baffles for many years.
Sorry OP.
This is empirically and provably (via mathematics) incorrect.
Again, the question isn't whether it's more stable or not. That answer is known and provable. Smaller return area = more stability because each top off cycle has a smaller ratio of top off water to system volume. Again, provable with mathematics and therefore inarguable.
The question is whether that added stability matters or not. To you, it might not (and we can't know because a proper experiment has never been performed). You've found a recipe for success, in spite of a less stable sytem. To others, it might. There are other factors here that you're failing to take into consideration -- the biggest being total return area and ratio of delta volume (amount of water each top off cycle adds) to total system volume.
You've found a system that equates to success for you, which is great. No one is doubting your success and experience. But that's just it: it's YOUR experience. That doesn't mean it extrapolates well to others. If someone uses a large stock tank as a sump on a 29 gallon aquarium (ie the sump volume/area > tank volume), it could (and almost certainly would) cause them problems if their goal is raise livestock that requires stability.
We all know that there are many ways to be successful in this hobby, but we must not allow ourselves to fall into the belief that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Last edited:
I do not believe either way is more stable than the next as SG does not change with the amount of water added in any of my systems to any degree of measurement.
Each top off cycle delivers a very small amount of water and is not enough to impact my old 120, current 80, and 45 frag systems.
It is pumping a small amount into 20g's of water in the sumps.
Plus the ato is not working as hard as one would need to in a small return area.
This might be noticable in smaller systems though.
All I said was its easier to service with no baffles.
It only extrapolates to others if they try it and it is a proven system as many run no baffle systems.
All other things being equal it just easier. Reefing is vety simple and easy if you want it to be.
Im just am old long time reefer who over the years has always tried to make things easier.
Not noticeable to you doesn't mean it's not noticeable to your inhabitants (again, does this matter?). But you do recognize that there exist scenarios in which it might be a problem. Which is all I'm saying.
Some of us have brains that are incapable of allowing us to do things the easy way when data/math shows that there's a "better" way available. And I put "better" in quotes because it may or may not have practical, visible benefits to the tank.
That doesn't make us any more right than you. Every tank is different, every reefer is different. We all need to find something that works for us and our tanks.
Chrisv.
2500 Club Member
You and your math/science. What kind of a forum do you think this is!?!
Again really! Do your math for us.
I dont want to do it but could.
I spent 20 years in Silicon Valley as a chemical engineer so I know it does not change SG enough to even measure it, or do the math for it as its insignificant.
How much does the SG change when adding 200ml of fresh water to a 120g system. Its minimal at best and does not effect the inhabitants at all.
Fine, I'll bite.
I use a JBJ float switch ATO. My top off "dose" is about 4 oz, give or take. Given my return chamber size, that equates to a liquid delta of about 0.1". Rephrased, my ATO requires 0.1" of height difference in order to refill the chamber
If I apply that same height difference to the entire 20g long sump, my ATO volume would increase to 20 oz. My total system volume is approx. 7040 ounces.
ATO volume expressed as a percentage of system volume:
Current setup (small return chamber): 0.005%
No baffles: 0.28%
Rephrased, with baffles my parameters swing by 0.05%. Without baffles, they'd swing by 0.28%.
Applying those percentages to key tank parameters yields the following parameter swings:
Baffles:
Salinity: 0.0175 ppt
Ca: 0.22 ppm
Mg: 0.675 ppm
Alk: 0.0039 dkh
No baffles:
Salinity: 0.098 ppt
Ca: 1.232 ppm
Mg: 3.78 ppm
Alk: 0.021 dkh
A bit more math, shows that by using the baffles, I've reduced parameter swing solely due to evaporation/top off by about 80%. Again, does this matter? Maybe, maybe not. Neither of us have performed a controlled study to prove either way. But I can say I'm absolutely able to see a 0.1ish ppt swing using a refractometer. I might not be able to quantify it as 0.175 ppt, but I can see that it's not exactly at the 35 ppt line which is what I shoot for.
For me, spending $20 on glass and silicone and gluing some baffles in my sump before I filled my tank up with water just made sense. I don't have any problem cleaning around them, and I never have in all my years of reefing -- and the added stability just gives me peace of mind and one less variable in the event I run into problems. YMMV.
Last edited:
Ok useing a floating hydrometer, which I prefer, I show almost no difference regardless of what your math says.
Refracs are know to be inconsistant and can give different results with back to back tests.
I have tested my systems multiple times throughout the day with the same results.
The Tunze ato is very accurate from my experience and I again notice no differemce as im not trying to split hairs.
Have a great reef day.
I calibrate with a known standard prior to every test. And after, if something seems off. I also clean it with DI after use and store it dry. And I use the same light source (with no external influences) for each measurement, and allow some time after applying the solution under measurement so that temperature compensation can occur. I can assure you that mine offers repeatable results. But then again, I spent some money on it back in the day. It's not a $15 Amazon special.
Look dude (dudette?), I'm not saying you're method doesn't work. I'm not saying your method is wrong.
I AM saying your assertion that there's absolutely no difference in stability is factually incorrect, but I'll fully admit the difference may be purely academic when considering tank outcomes. That's where the debate lies.
My intent was to make sure OP can make a fully informed decision as it's up to the individual to decide what magnitude of parameter swing is acceptable to them and weigh that against the possible cons of having baffles.
Have a great day, yourself.
Thanks, I get what your saying but the the difference is not enough to influence most systems, imo.
Its always good to talk to a fellow reefer that knows his s***.
Peace brother, im an old dude, lol.
ZombieEngineer
Valuable Member
I showed you the math twice already. A top off cycle does not add 200ml on a 40 breeder sump. It adds best case 2654ml for 1/4" float hysteresis, 5308ml for more typical 1/2" variation and adds 10616ml during a failure mode.
Best case scenario you are off by a factor of 10. I expect better from someone who says they were a chemical engineer. The math takes less than 30 seconds to perform.
Similar threads
