Number of returns 48" tank

[drtrash]

most tanks are designed with 2 returns but i see most tanks running multiple powerheads, so is the extra hole needed. I think its a hold over from tanks of the past a maybe symmetry ocd

 

[KJAG]

More important than dual ( or single) returns is the size of the return(s) and the overflow/ drains, and whether you have some sort of emergency drain in place in the event your drain becomes clogged. Can throw as many powerheads as you want in the display and it won’t assist in system turnover and flood failsafe measures

 

[drtrash]

Agree on having high turnover but dont need 2 returns for that

 

[KJAG]

Agree on having high turnover but dont need 2 returns for that

No, You don’t. That’s why I mentioned diameter of the returns being more important. If you were to screw a high pressure nozzle onto a hose, the force of the water would be greater, but you would be ejecting less volume.
High pressure=lower volume. Which equals lower system turnover. Personally I’d never have either a single or dual return less than an inch.

 

[drtrash]

I usually run 3/4 but only run 500 gph but new system will be 1000 gph. I know it sounds lazy but easier to plumb 1 vs 2 returns but also dont think flow pattern would be deficient. I run 2 mp 40's also

 

[Luno]

The reason most people run two returns is to spread out the way water is returned.

Now the smart people run multiple returns because they have multiple return pumps for redundancy. If one fails one is still working.

 

[drtrash]

Smart people, you mean dc pump owners? Kinda humor but never had a ac pump fail, read many posts of dc failures. Just thinking the new build through and see more logic with one verse 2 ( less pipe, less holes, less leak points, less time and hassle of balancing flow between different length of pipe, not to mention cheaper). Let me know if i am missing something

 

[Luno]

Smart people, you mean dc pump owners? Kinda humor but never had a ac pump fail, read many posts of dc failures. Just thinking the new build through and see more logic with one verse 2 ( less pipe, less holes, less leak points, less time and hassle of balancing flow between different length of pipe, not to mention cheaper). Let me know if i am missing something

Ive had ac pumps fail numerous times over the years. Something got caught, the magnetic drive failed for whatever reason. It's not a necessity but in this hobby you can never rule out the unexpected, it happens and can be crippling.

Redundancy is a massive thing in reefing. it's why we have apex's, controllers monitors battery back ups etc. again it's definitely not a necessity but when redundancy works in your favor your glad that you planned ahead for unexpected equipment failure.

 

[Luno]

Yes it is extra work in the beginning, planning for the future or for failures, and a lot of people do think it's over the top. I'm a bit extra than most. But when you've been through a few tank disasters from basic things failing you want to spend the extra time and effort in the beginning for not loosing your tank down the track. For example I go as far as to have a back up ato float and sensor switch set up lower than my main switch. Just incase for what ever reason my main has an issue. Seems crazy but it did come into play once. It may not have been disastrous but you never know.

My last large tank I would estimate the cost of my system inhabitants in the tens of thousands. If I could spend an extra few hours or an extra couple hundred dollars to protect that, I will.

 

[cracker]

One return, straight up to the tank ,minimal angled fittings , With the best diameter gives the best performance from what ever pump You use. Try differing diameter return lines, find which works best. The return is for turnover. Power heads in the tank supply the flow & current Ya want. If Your concern is a pump failing just give it a good look every day. I'd think most tanks can go a day if You have power heads in the display.

 

[drtrash]

I need to take a look at the added redundacy, will do apex so should know if return fails couls run larger retorn with smaller pump as back up running off a tee. Agree with cracker on true purpose of return, not intended for flow

 

[Luno]

Another thought in regards to your return/flow through sump. It may be an old school of thought and been proven wrong by now. I always do this though, is I try to match my flow to my equipment to utilize it best. Example skimmer has a 100g/hr rates pump move around 100g/hr though sump. If you plan to use chillers and depending how you run them off return of manifold. Your end result of what flow will be dictated by your equipment for the most part.

 

[ca1ore]

Although I am a big fan of the apex, the irony in this thread is quite amusing. The BIG drawback of it is that it introduces a single point of failure, so don't be lulled into a false sense of security. Now, maybe you are running dual apex systems ....

 

[Luno]

If that was referring to me, I mentioned apex system as a means often used to aid in redundancy nothing more. But you do raise a valid point I have never been a fan of the apex mostly for that reason while having one thing to control everything is nice and easy I like to run simple controllers like the STC-1000 for example for as a redundancy for heaters and chiller. Also I have never been a fan of the apex for the cost when a few simple controllers can do the same at a fraction of the cost. And still coming out with a ph probe just eerks me, I gave up caring about ph when I learnt better.

Although I am a big fan of the apex, the irony in this thread is quite amusing. The BIG drawback of it is that it introduces a single point of failure, so don't be lulled into a false sense of security. Now, maybe you are running dual apex systems ....

Ok I'll bite, duel basic things is easy and cheap to do duel expensive controller is just taking the tick

I think general redundancy for failures most people will agree is a good thing, of what level you want to take that is upto you. Everyone has their own experiences and what's worked and hasn't worked and shares what has worked for them. And I choose to do that without having to act like a condescending child, when I don't agree with someone.

 

[drtrash]

I like the redundancy of heater plugged into controller but other than that don’t trust it, like having mp40 for flow and pump for filtration that’s overlap not redundancy, also have t5 and led lighting

 

[ca1ore]

If that was referring to me, I mentioned apex system as a means often used to aid in redundancy nothing more. But you do raise a valid point I have never been a fan of the apex mostly for that reason while having one thing to control everything is nice and easy I like to run simple controllers like the STC-1000 for example for as a redundancy for heaters and chiller. Also I have never been a fan of the apex for the cost when a few simple controllers can do the same at a fraction of the cost. And still coming out with a ph probe just eerks me, I gave up caring about ph when I learnt better.



Ok I'll bite, duel basic things is easy and cheap to do duel expensive controller is just taking the ****

I think general redundancy for failures most people will agree is a good thing, of what level you want to take that is upto you. Everyone has their own experiences and what's worked and hasn't worked and shares what has worked for them. And I choose to do that without having to act like a condescending child, when I don't agree with someone.

My comment was a general observation rather than a specific response to your post .... otherwise I would have quoted your post. No need to be defensive. I simply find it funny when folks talk about redundancy and then think it's OK to funnel everything through a single apex. I see this all the time, both here and on that other forum. I'm a BIG fan of redundancy, and have extolled the virtues of same for many years. Every piece of gear will eventually fail, though of course some sooner than others.

 

[ca1ore]

Smart people, you mean dc pump owners? Kinda humor but never had a ac pump fail, read many posts of dc failures. Just thinking the new build through and see more logic with one verse 2 ( less pipe, less holes, less leak points, less time and hassle of balancing flow between different length of pipe, not to mention cheaper). Let me know if i am missing something

I have run all my big tanks the same way. A proven AC pump through as short a run of piping as possible and minimal fittings - no locline, educators or other crap - ending in a single outlet. Depending upon the pump, that single outlet is either 1" or 1 1/2". I don't run redundant returns because I use reliable pumps (Iwaki for 20 years; PanWorld for 10); though were I to use cheap DC pumps, I'd consider it. On my current 450, I have the single return and then a bean drain. Works beautifully. Lots of in-tank circulators though.

 

[Luno]

My comment was a general observation rather than a specific response to your post .... otherwise I would have quoted your post. No need to be defensive. I simply find it funny when folks talk about redundancy and then think it's OK to funnel everything through a single apex. I see this all the time, both here and on that other forum. I'm a BIG fan of redundancy, and have extolled the virtues of same for many years. Every piece of gear will eventually fail, though of course some sooner than others.

I agree with your point of the everything counting on one device of redundancy, actually an aspect rarely thought of. The maybe running 2 apex's was definitley a dig. Which is normally fine on that day my mood was not there for shenanigans.