Cheap PVC canister manifold for two tanks

nc0gnet0 said:
I apologize if you percieved a tone, it was not my intent, hopefully the mods can delete all post not pertaining to original subject matter......
Click to expand...

Oh please are you kidding me! Your comments help me think different about the problem and consider alternatives, like my water bridge return argument. Its all part of problem solving. Even though It may seem I don't appreciate criticism on the surface, I know its a vital part of working out any problem. So on the contrary thanks you for any and all comments.
 
All your points are valid gunner and I see your dilema. But I do think that a bridge of some sort will be neccesary in order for this to work and equalization will not occur within the confines of a pressurized system.
 
Gunner, your water bridge argument was the solution to the problem, it is in essence the same as what I added to your illustration. I was apologizing to 67chevelle, as he percieved me as being on a high horse, but I digress, sometimes my understanding of the issue and my ability to put it into words are on different levels, add to this my dry sense of humor and misunderstandings occur........ ;)
 
Well the water bridge is not really the solution. Originally I had considered just placing the FX5 inlet in one tank and out let in the other tank to filter both and then just using a 5" ABS or PVC pipe with bends and screens (keep fish out) to equalize both tanks at there closest front corner 5 inches apart. I even though of using two 3" pipes instead so that one was a backup encase on lost siphon and the sum of the two would provide more compact flow.

The whole problem and draw back with over the top siphons and bridges are initial priming and maintaining that priming over time as air comes out of solution due to temperature differences between the inside and out side air, bubbles will form and accumulate in the tube unnoticed until hydraulic lock occurs and siphon stops. That is way I was thinking that a pressurized system would continually expel air but never lose siphon because of pumped water inside the water bridge would always self prime.

This all begs the question against your argument which is as follows:

Having two large functioning water bridges connecting two aquariums, why would connecting a canister inlet (10x smaller) to one water bridge and the outlet (10x smaller) to the other water bridge be any different or more of a liability then having the canister hoses in other location inside each tank?

And how large does a water bridge have to be before the pressure of a canister no longer overwhelms its ability to equalize, due to as "you say" it wont work in a pressurized system? 10x bigger, 100X bigger, the size of a lake, or an ocean?.

And if successful water bridges by definition are pressurized due to the fact that one canister feeds them and water flows from one side of the bridge to the other to prevent stagnicity, how do you according to your theory explain the lack of flooding and equalization between the two tanks?

So you see my system is no different only protects the loss of siphon by continual priming. With my system prime cannot be lost unless the canister stops and therefore the flooding concern is solved!

Here is a good example of how a water pump can be strong enough to overcome head pressure and still not affect a water bridges ability to equalize, I just discovered this myself. Tom Rapids Aquatics has a water bridge kit that uses their small aqua lift pump to overcome head pressure and keep the water bridge auto primes without interfering with tank to tank equalization. Doesn't this prove my theory and idea which unfortunately has already been proven, thought of and marketed COL
http://www.animalworldnetwork.com/baqtrailaqki.html
animalworldnetwork_2079_865685104

.
 
Last edited:
Gunner...you crack me up. I know you have heard of making a mountain out of a molehill.

The solution is a drilled set of tanks with an equalizing line or overflows on each tank to a sump/wet dry.....

Love your entusiasm....
 
Having two large functioning water bridges connecting two aquariums, why would connecting a canister inlet (10x smaller) to one water bridge and the outlet (10x smaller) to the other water bridge be any different or more of a liability then having the canister hoses in other location inside each tank?
Click to expand...

It doesn't allow for simultaneous two way water flow, either the water is going in or the water is going out, both will not happen at the same time.


And how large does a water bridge have to be before the pressure of a canister no longer overwhelms its ability to equalize, due to as "you say" it wont work in a pressurized system? 10x bigger, 100X bigger, the size of a lake, or an ocean?.
Click to expand...

LOL, slightly larger than a pond, but somewhat smaller than an ocean... :P
But seriously, it would have to be large enough so that the resultant back pressure load of all the combined influeces would be greater than that in which could be overcome by the pump. Then waterflow would cease, then reverse, until equilibrum was acheived.


And if successful water bridges by definition are pressurized due to the fact that one canister feeds them and water flows from one side of the bridge to the other to prevent stagnicity, how do you according to your theory explain the lack of flooding and equalization between the two tanks?
Click to expand...

Because this pressure eases as equallibrium is approached, which is not the case when you introduce a pump into the equation.
 
Long story short, in theory you could achieve this but you would need to be operating near critical mass in regards to backpressure due to head hieght. But to do so would mean that your net flow was so greatly reduced your filtration would me marginal at best and not produce the turnover rate you desired. Add to this as the filter medium collected debris, increasing backpressure even more, filtration/flow would stop completely, but you would maintain equillibrum.
 
Let me try to explain this using a set of scenario's. First of all your design utilizes two chambers, both pressuride due to different influenes. The return chamber derives it pressure from water in your tanks both trying to achieve a lower level and that of the nlet side of your pump drawing water in.

Much in the same way your pump chamber is filled with the water being expelled from the pump.

Now if you were to say partially block the inlet side of one of the tanks, the net result would be less water being drawn from on tank, yet the same amount of water being expelled into each tank with a net result of an overflow. Now, your expecting as the water level rises in the tank with the partially plugged intake for one of two things to happen.

One, as the water level rises in the tank it will increase the back pressure and effectively "turn off" the flow into that tank directing it to the other tank. How effective this will be depends on several factors, but it can only be 100 % effective if the increase in backpressure results in a "critical mass" state. Assuming your going to be filling each tank at least 4/5 full, I highly doubt you will reach this point before water starts to spill over the top edge of the partially blocked tank.

Scenario two would have water fom the overfilled tank attempting to find level with the other tank hydraulicly. To do so it is going to have to virtually flow from one tank thru the chamber to the other. But in trying to do so it has to overcome the pressure you have introduced into these chambers. If it trys to leave the overfiled tank in its supply tube it encounters opossing pessure as it travels down the tube to the pvc canister.
 
Now if you were to utilize some float valves like the ones found inside a toilet, it might be doable, but it would be a challange to make it look good..........

.......just another idea to ponder..............
 
Hey Gunner, how bout just buying another fx5, you know you want another one ? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom