I'm with him^ Along the line that EVERYTHING fails... if you are solely depending on a siphon break and it is clogged.... yeah!!! another flood.
Redundancy for the win!
Redundancy for the win!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
For the price and effort of including a check valve, why wouldn't you? A siphon break is for poor people and a check valve is pure piece of mind.
I have no idea why there is so much hate on this thread for them.
That's actually quite brilliant.I always just use air gaps created by a 1/4" John Guest Fitting, in the top of the return lines, to break siphon. The outlet dumps right behind my overflow, so I can always see the flow, to make sure they don't get clogged. I haven't had one clog in the last 8 years though.
I'm with him^ Along the line that EVERYTHING fails... if you are solely depending on a siphon break and it is clogged.... yeah!!! another flood.
Redundancy for the win!
no, there was a lot of actual hate towards them, haha! So, no need for the "newsflash". People weren't just discussing options but saying you SHALL NOT put them in. I also said they are usually designed out. I love mine because my return plumbing doesn't drain out and cause a lot of bubbles and splashing when return pump comes back on. That's pretty much it.Oh man, those kinds of comments always make me laugh. Newsflash - logical explanations for why something doesn't work or isn't necessary isn't 'hate' …… If you want to use them, use them. Heck I used wye checks for years before finally concluding they were pointless. I can think of a few instances where checks might be helpful, but they can almost always be designed out.
no, there was a lot of actual hate towards them, haha! So, no need for the "newsflash". People weren't just discussing options but saying you SHALL NOT put them in.
Actually, this isn't true. They both have their place and it doesn't have anything to do with rich or poor. It is all about the design of the system and at what stage was the check valve use considered and/or installed. It really makes a difference.
Several already pointed out that this is a often heated subject. Having said that they are just another tool in our toolbox to help reduce flooding. Several ways to do this I"m sure you know be it a properly designed return line placement to the storage capacity of the sump in the even of a power failure. Check valves when used correctly and of good quality and maintained offer one line of defence. Same can be said when a siphon break is used. Again, it has to be set in a proper place and replicated on all possible back fills. Maintenance is also required in order for it to work properly.
If either of these are used in a system then you need routine maintenance for them to be reliable. If one is about reducing the day to day or week to week or monthly maintenance chores then one shouldn't use either of these and properly size the sump to handle any water than may back fill the sump should one be used.
It really is that simple. Both work. Both need maintenance. Neither choice is wrong.
Ok. Thanks for all the info!
@waterskiguy do you have any pictures of this? Trying to understand it. Thanks!
I don't necessarily agree with them both needing maintenance, I had my siphon break plumbed off my return with 1/4" RODI and a valve similar to @waterskiguy, tuned it to low flow, didn't touch it for 3 years until I took my tank down, worked flawlessly during that time and I'm sure would still be working flawlessly to this day if it was still up. The only maintenance I did was look at it from time to time lol. I'll be plumbing my new return the same way and I'm sure it will work just as well.
I do think there is such a thing as too small of a siphon break hole though and one that is too small could potentially clog, or worse yet, not be large enough to provide sufficient air to break the siphon.
I agree. Some would drill, some use the 1/4" John Guest, etc. I guess I assumed all would drill or pick up the maintenance side if going a more simpler approach for which I shouldn't have assumed I've had a small / baby strombus snail block one of mine years ago on a drilled hole.
I think a couple of you here pointed out the guest connectors which I think is a nice idea. That is what I use on my Bean Animal overflow and I think they are great.
You are right that most would go for the straight simple approach with a single hole in the return line as this is the most popular option. And it's not an entirely set it and forget it setup, but the maintenance side of it is greatly reduced compared to a check valve A rogue snail blocking the siphon hole is definitely a concern, but there are ways around that as well, a second hole maybe? Now obviously there are limits to this, we don't want to turn the return line into swiss cheese lol!
This is where I feel (And why I went with) plumbing it in with the Guest fittings is really beneficial as it removes the siphon break out of the tank entirely. This helps prevent algae growth as well as removes the potential of something snail, algae etc covering it up or clogging it entirely It also can increase the flow of your return compared to a simple hole in the line (However negligible the difference is) as you can tune the flow of the siphon break to a trickle, something that can't be done with the drilled option. This puts the majority of your flow out the return nozzle as it's supposed to be. Does it need maintenance, sure, everything does. It should be looked at once a month orso but that's pretty much the extent of it atleast that's how it was for me. 100 ways to look at it all and at the end of the day it's up to each individual to decide what route is best for them. Same for most decisions in this hobby especially with plumbing setups, return pumps, lighting etc.
I keep seeing people talk about using John Gust fittings, but I can't seem to picture how they are plumbed into a return system.