Pipe size?

[Grumpy]

How much difference will there be between 2 and 3 inch pipe? I'm trying
to do 3 inch flexible pvc pipe all through out. One problem I am for
seeing is that one of the filter's I'm planning to use only has 1 ½ inch
ports (aqua ultima II). Take a look at the bottom of the page of my
schematic so far. It just seems that 2 inch stuff is more available. Thanks

[Grumpy]

Whoops, here's the url: http://home.comcast.net/~grumpy232/pondpage.htm

Grumpy wrote:

> How much difference will there be between 2 and 3 inch pipe? I'm trying
> to do 3 inch flexible pvc pipe all through out. One problem I am for
> seeing is that one of the filter's I'm planning to use only has 1 ½ inch
> ports (aqua ultima II). Take a look at the bottom of the page of my
> schematic so far. It just seems that 2 inch stuff is more available. Thanks
>

[Benign Vanilla]

"Grumpy" > wrote in message
news:_veWc.72162$TI1.30000@attbi_s52...
> How much difference will there be between 2 and 3 inch pipe? I'm trying
> to do 3 inch flexible pvc pipe all through out. One problem I am for
> seeing is that one of the filter's I'm planning to use only has 1 ½ inch
> ports (aqua ultima II). Take a look at the bottom of the page of my
> schematic so far. It just seems that 2 inch stuff is more available.
Thanks

When I was building my pond, someone told me to go big. I went 4''. I am
happy I did. Nothing ever gets clogged, and I am sized to handle anything I
can throw at it. My two cents, says go big.

BV.

[gng]

I have a Sequence 7200 and Aqua Ultima filter. The original guy who built
this used 1.5 inch, but when you do the math you actually get nearly twice
the water with 2" pipe. Been told the intake is the most important place to
have the larger pipe. Sequence told me to use 3" if I could for even more
flow.

gary
"Benign Vanilla" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Grumpy" > wrote in message
> news:_veWc.72162$TI1.30000@attbi_s52...
> > How much difference will there be between 2 and 3 inch pipe? I'm trying
> > to do 3 inch flexible pvc pipe all through out. One problem I am for
> > seeing is that one of the filter's I'm planning to use only has 1 ½ inch
> > ports (aqua ultima II). Take a look at the bottom of the page of my
> > schematic so far. It just seems that 2 inch stuff is more available.
> Thanks
>
> When I was building my pond, someone told me to go big. I went 4''. I am
> happy I did. Nothing ever gets clogged, and I am sized to handle anything
I
> can throw at it. My two cents, says go big.
>
> BV.
>
>

[Benign Vanilla]

"gng" > wrote in message
...
> I have a Sequence 7200 and Aqua Ultima filter. The original guy who built
> this used 1.5 inch, but when you do the math you actually get nearly twice
> the water with 2" pipe. Been told the intake is the most important place
to
> have the larger pipe. Sequence told me to use 3" if I could for even more
> flow.
<snip>

I would agree. Never restrict the input to your pump.

BV.

[Grumpy]

The 3" to the input is no problem. The bottom drain and skimmer are
plumbed for 3". It's the output I have concern for. I want as much flow
as possible to the falls. Will I be able to do 3" from the Ultima? Thanks

Benign Vanilla wrote:

> "gng" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I have a Sequence 7200 and Aqua Ultima filter. The original guy who built
>>this used 1.5 inch, but when you do the math you actually get nearly twice
>>the water with 2" pipe. Been told the intake is the most important place
>
> to
>
>>have the larger pipe. Sequence told me to use 3" if I could for even more
>>flow.
>
> <snip>
>
> I would agree. Never restrict the input to your pump.
>
> BV.
>
>

[Richard E. Steele]

You can look at the pipe friction head loss chart shown on this site to see
what the differences in head for different pipe diameters and calculate the
anticipated flow rate. http://www.aquaart.com/pondFLC.html

RichToyBox
http://www.geocities.com/richtoybox/index.html

"Grumpy" > wrote in message
news:_veWc.72162$TI1.30000@attbi_s52...
> How much difference will there be between 2 and 3 inch pipe? I'm trying
> to do 3 inch flexible pvc pipe all through out. One problem I am for
> seeing is that one of the filter's I'm planning to use only has 1 ½ inch
> ports (aqua ultima II). Take a look at the bottom of the page of my
> schematic so far. It just seems that 2 inch stuff is more available.
Thanks
>

[Andy Hill]

Grumpy > wrote:
>Benign Vanilla wrote:
>
>> "gng" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>I have a Sequence 7200 and Aqua Ultima filter. The original guy who built
>>>this used 1.5 inch, but when you do the math you actually get nearly twice
>>>the water with 2" pipe. Been told the intake is the most important place
>>
>> to
>>
>>>have the larger pipe. Sequence told me to use 3" if I could for even more
>>>flow.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I would agree. Never restrict the input to your pump.
>> BV.
>>
>The 3" to the input is no problem. The bottom drain and skimmer are
>plumbed for 3". It's the output I have concern for. I want as much flow
>as possible to the falls. Will I be able to do 3" from the Ultima? Thanks
>
The pump doesn't give a rip what your pipe diameter is, all it cares about is
the static and dynamic head. Bigger pipe gives you a smaller dynamic head for
a given flow rate. You *might* run into the situation where the system is
overdesigned (dynamic head is so low that static head is all the pump is pushing
against), but I doubt you'll run into that situation with only 3" pipe. If you
want to be sure, figure out the system's dynamic head from the tables referenced
in Richard's post, and check against the flow curves for your pump.

[Grumpy]

All I really want to know is, is it worth going to a 3 inch pipe from a
1 1/2 inch port from the filter.

Andy Hill wrote:

> Grumpy > wrote:
>
>>Benign Vanilla wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"gng" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have a Sequence 7200 and Aqua Ultima filter. The original guy who built
>>>>this used 1.5 inch, but when you do the math you actually get nearly twice
>>>>the water with 2" pipe. Been told the intake is the most important place
>>>
>>>to
>>>
>>>
>>>>have the larger pipe. Sequence told me to use 3" if I could for even more
>>>>flow.
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>I would agree. Never restrict the input to your pump.
>>>BV.
>>>
>>
>>The 3" to the input is no problem. The bottom drain and skimmer are
>>plumbed for 3". It's the output I have concern for. I want as much flow
>>as possible to the falls. Will I be able to do 3" from the Ultima? Thanks
>>
>
> The pump doesn't give a rip what your pipe diameter is, all it cares about is
> the static and dynamic head. Bigger pipe gives you a smaller dynamic head for
> a given flow rate. You *might* run into the situation where the system is
> overdesigned (dynamic head is so low that static head is all the pump is pushing
> against), but I doubt you'll run into that situation with only 3" pipe. If you
> want to be sure, figure out the system's dynamic head from the tables referenced
> in Richard's post, and check against the flow curves for your pump.
>

[RichToyBox]

Using the performance chart located at www.fancykoioutlet.com with a static
head of 5 foot and assuming that pipe, valves, elbows, filter head, etc. is
equivalent to 100 foot of pipe, a 2 inch pipe will give about 80 gallon per
minute, while the 3 inch will give about 100 gallon per minute. It the
equivalent length of pipe were 50 foot the flow 3" pipe would have almost no
difference, while the 2 inch pipe would yield a flow of about 95 gallons per
minute.

As you can see, the pipe diameter, number of fittings, length of pipe,
filter components, and other factors. If your plumbing is mostly straight
runs with a minimum of elbows, valves, tees, based on your schematic and my
approximation of distances based on the block counts, you may be able to get
the equivalent length down to about 30 foot, but with many fittings, it
could go as high as 100 foot since each elbow is equivalent to about 4 foot
of pipe and each valve (fully open is equivalaent to about 2 foot of pipe.
--
RichToyBox
http://www.geocities.com/richtoybox/index.html

"Grumpy" > wrote in message
news:qFRWc.38848$9d6.21590@attbi_s54...
> All I really want to know is, is it worth going to a 3 inch pipe from a
> 1 1/2 inch port from the filter.
>
> Andy Hill wrote:
>
> > Grumpy > wrote:
> >
> >>Benign Vanilla wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"gng" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I have a Sequence 7200 and Aqua Ultima filter. The original guy who
built
> >>>>this used 1.5 inch, but when you do the math you actually get nearly
twice
> >>>>the water with 2" pipe. Been told the intake is the most important
place
> >>>
> >>>to
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>have the larger pipe. Sequence told me to use 3" if I could for even
more
> >>>>flow.
> >>>
> >>><snip>
> >>>
> >>>I would agree. Never restrict the input to your pump.
> >>>BV.
> >>>
> >>
> >>The 3" to the input is no problem. The bottom drain and skimmer are
> >>plumbed for 3". It's the output I have concern for. I want as much flow
> >>as possible to the falls. Will I be able to do 3" from the Ultima?
Thanks
> >>
> >
> > The pump doesn't give a rip what your pipe diameter is, all it cares
about is
> > the static and dynamic head. Bigger pipe gives you a smaller dynamic
head for
> > a given flow rate. You *might* run into the situation where the system
is
> > overdesigned (dynamic head is so low that static head is all the pump is
pushing
> > against), but I doubt you'll run into that situation with only 3" pipe.
If you
> > want to be sure, figure out the system's dynamic head from the tables
referenced
> > in Richard's post, and check against the flow curves for your pump.
> >
>

[gng]

Well, my unofficial advice is to just do it. You're going to spend money to
get 1.5" pipe anyway, so spend a bit more and get the most of your
investment. Or do what I do and get the smaller stuff and just upgrade
every other year (and pull out that checkbook). I am the guy with the $350
sequence pump on the side of my house not sure what to do with it now.

"RichToyBox" > wrote in message
news:rMSWc.304517$a24.115577@attbi_s03...
> Using the performance chart located at www.fancykoioutlet.com with a
static
> head of 5 foot and assuming that pipe, valves, elbows, filter head, etc.
is
> equivalent to 100 foot of pipe, a 2 inch pipe will give about 80 gallon
per
> minute, while the 3 inch will give about 100 gallon per minute. It the
> equivalent length of pipe were 50 foot the flow 3" pipe would have almost
no
> difference, while the 2 inch pipe would yield a flow of about 95 gallons
per
> minute.
>
> As you can see, the pipe diameter, number of fittings, length of pipe,
> filter components, and other factors. If your plumbing is mostly straight
> runs with a minimum of elbows, valves, tees, based on your schematic and
my
> approximation of distances based on the block counts, you may be able to
get
> the equivalent length down to about 30 foot, but with many fittings, it
> could go as high as 100 foot since each elbow is equivalent to about 4
foot
> of pipe and each valve (fully open is equivalaent to about 2 foot of pipe.
> --
> RichToyBox
> http://www.geocities.com/richtoybox/index.html
>
> "Grumpy" > wrote in message
> news:qFRWc.38848$9d6.21590@attbi_s54...
> > All I really want to know is, is it worth going to a 3 inch pipe from a
> > 1 1/2 inch port from the filter.
> >
> > Andy Hill wrote:
> >
> > > Grumpy > wrote:
> > >
> > >>Benign Vanilla wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>"gng" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>I have a Sequence 7200 and Aqua Ultima filter. The original guy who
> built
> > >>>>this used 1.5 inch, but when you do the math you actually get nearly
> twice
> > >>>>the water with 2" pipe. Been told the intake is the most important
> place
> > >>>
> > >>>to
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>have the larger pipe. Sequence told me to use 3" if I could for
even
> more
> > >>>>flow.
> > >>>
> > >>><snip>
> > >>>
> > >>>I would agree. Never restrict the input to your pump.
> > >>>BV.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>The 3" to the input is no problem. The bottom drain and skimmer are
> > >>plumbed for 3". It's the output I have concern for. I want as much
flow
> > >>as possible to the falls. Will I be able to do 3" from the Ultima?
> Thanks
> > >>
> > >
> > > The pump doesn't give a rip what your pipe diameter is, all it cares
> about is
> > > the static and dynamic head. Bigger pipe gives you a smaller
dynamic
> head for
> > > a given flow rate. You *might* run into the situation where the
system
> is
> > > overdesigned (dynamic head is so low that static head is all the pump
is
> pushing
> > > against), but I doubt you'll run into that situation with only 3"
pipe.
> If you
> > > want to be sure, figure out the system's dynamic head from the tables
> referenced
> > > in Richard's post, and check against the flow curves for your pump.
> > >
> >
>
>

[Andy Hill]

Grumpy > wrote:
>All I really want to know is, is it worth going to a 3 inch pipe from a
>1 1/2 inch port from the filter.
>
Almost certainly.

[San Diego Joe]

Short answer: Yes.

> All I really want to know is, is it worth going to a 3 inch pipe from a
> 1 1/2 inch port from the filter.
>

Slightly longer answer: Maybe someday you'll want to enlarge your pond or
pump and will then have a jump on the pipe size. As my SO always says (she's
so cute) bigger is always better.


San Diego Joe
4,000 - 5,000 Gallons.
Goldfish, a RES named Colombo and an Oscar.



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Grumpy]

I'm finding out that 3" vs 2" is quite a price jump. I'm planning 3"
from the skimmer and bottom drain. Now I have question about how to
plumb the 3" into the 2" fitting on the pump. What would be the outcome
(pro's con's) of 3" downsized to 2" in the red circle on the diagram at
bottom of page. Thanks
http://home.comcast.net/~grumpy232/pondpage.htm

San Diego Joe wrote:
> Short answer: Yes.
>
>
>>All I really want to know is, is it worth going to a 3 inch pipe from a
>>1 1/2 inch port from the filter.
>>
>
>
> Slightly longer answer: Maybe someday you'll want to enlarge your pond or
> pump and will then have a jump on the pipe size. As my SO always says (she's
> so cute) bigger is always better.
>
>
> San Diego Joe
> 4,000 - 5,000 Gallons.
> Goldfish, a RES named Colombo and an Oscar.
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[RichToyBox]

No problem.
--
RichToyBox
http://www.geocities.com/richtoybox/index.html

"Grumpy" > wrote in message
news:if5Xc.44486$9d6.23519@attbi_s54...
> I'm finding out that 3" vs 2" is quite a price jump. I'm planning 3"
> from the skimmer and bottom drain. Now I have question about how to
> plumb the 3" into the 2" fitting on the pump. What would be the outcome
> (pro's con's) of 3" downsized to 2" in the red circle on the diagram at
> bottom of page. Thanks
> http://home.comcast.net/~grumpy232/pondpage.htm
>
> San Diego Joe wrote:
> > Short answer: Yes.
> >
> >
> >>All I really want to know is, is it worth going to a 3 inch pipe from a
> >>1 1/2 inch port from the filter.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Slightly longer answer: Maybe someday you'll want to enlarge your pond
or
> > pump and will then have a jump on the pipe size. As my SO always says
(she's
> > so cute) bigger is always better.
> >
> >
> > San Diego Joe
> > 4,000 - 5,000 Gallons.
> > Goldfish, a RES named Colombo and an Oscar.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> > http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> > -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
>

[Crashj]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:34:17 -0700, San Diego Joe >
wrote:

>Short answer: Yes.
<>
> As my SO always says (she's
>so cute) bigger is always better.

And on what is she basing this opinion?

--
Crashj

[San Diego Joe]

"Crashj" wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:34:17 -0700, San Diego Joe >
> wrote:
>
>> Short answer: Yes.
> <>
>> As my SO always says (she's
>> so cute) bigger is always better.
>
> And on what is she basing this opinion?

Sorry, that's all I'm allowed to say.

San Diego Joe
4,000 - 5,000 Gallons.
Goldfish, a RES named Colombo and an Oscar.



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Crashj]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:14:55 -0700, San Diego Joe >
wrote:

>"Crashj" wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:34:17 -0700, San Diego Joe >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Short answer: Yes.
>> <>
>>> As my SO always says (she's
>>> so cute) bigger is always better.
>>
>> And on what is she basing this opinion?
>
>Sorry, that's all I'm allowed to say.

So how is she at parallel parking?
--
Crashj

[San Diego Joe]

"Crashj" wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:14:55 -0700, San Diego Joe >
> wrote:
>
>> "Crashj" wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:34:17 -0700, San Diego Joe >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Short answer: Yes.
>>> <>
>>>> As my SO always says (she's
>>>> so cute) bigger is always better.
>>>
>>> And on what is she basing this opinion?
>>
>> Sorry, that's all I'm allowed to say.
>
> So how is she at parallel parking?

Sorry, I'm getting in way too deep here.


San Diego Joe
4,000 - 5,000 Gallons.
Goldfish, a RES named Colombo and an Oscar.



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----