Reducing suction for a filter idea....

[Daniel Morrow]

What about using a spray bar in reverse? That way water is brought into the
filter at the same rate as before but distributed over a large area so no
baby fish (as babies might be able to swim out of the spray bar hole as the
suction would be reduced drastically) get sucked into the filter? Also would
be good for weak / ill fish so they don't get caught in the filter either?
Just an idea, any comments anyone? Good luck and later!

[Charles]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:21:50 -0800, "Daniel Morrow"
> wrote:

>What about using a spray bar in reverse? That way water is brought into the
>filter at the same rate as before but distributed over a large area so no
>baby fish (as babies might be able to swim out of the spray bar hole as the
>suction would be reduced drastically) get sucked into the filter? Also would
>be good for weak / ill fish so they don't get caught in the filter either?
>Just an idea, any comments anyone? Good luck and later!
>
Restricting the imput to a filter is bad, can cause damage to the
impeller. If you are certain that the same amount of water will come
in without causing cavitation, then it should be okay. why not just
put a sponge over the intake?

[Koi-Lo]

"Charles" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:21:50 -0800, "Daniel Morrow"
> > wrote:
>
>>What about using a spray bar in reverse? That way water is brought into
>>the
>>filter at the same rate as before but distributed over a large area so no
>>baby fish (as babies might be able to swim out of the spray bar hole as
>>the
>>suction would be reduced drastically) get sucked into the filter? Also
>>would
>>be good for weak / ill fish so they don't get caught in the filter either?
>>Just an idea, any comments anyone? Good luck and later!
>>
> Restricting the imput to a filter is bad, can cause damage to the
> impeller. If you are certain that the same amount of water will come
> in without causing cavitation, then it should be okay. why not just
> put a sponge over the intake?
=================================
These over-the-intake sponges not only save lives of small or weak fish but
act as prefilters, keeping larger bits of crud from being sucked into the
impeller area and upper sponges. They're excellent to use when starting a
new tank. Bacteria just seem to love them, probably because of the constant
water flow, heavier amount of tasty waste particles and large surface area.
--

Koi-Lo.... frugal ponding since 1995...
Aquariums since 1952
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
Troll Information:
http://tinyurl.com/9zbh
~~~ }<((((o> ~~~ }<{{{{o> ~~~ }<(((((o>

[WebBoardSurfer]

Be carefull when reducing suction of a centrifical pump this could be
fatal to the pump by causing a cavitation issue

here is a good page to take a look at on centrifical pumps (caution
very Tech) http://www.engineersedge.com/pumps/cavitation.htm

Good luck I think you can make this work just try and make sure you
don't create to hight of a pressure drop

[Fishman]

The velocity of water flow through a pipe is dependent up on the flow rate
and the size of the openings. The suction is more of a condition of
velocity entering the flow.

If your total open area was increased, even by the use of multiple smaller
holes, the overall suction at each individual hole would be reduced. This
would allow smaller, weaker fish to escape the intake flow.

Fishman


"Daniel Morrow" > wrote in message
...
> What about using a spray bar in reverse? That way water is brought into
the
> filter at the same rate as before but distributed over a large area so no
> baby fish (as babies might be able to swim out of the spray bar hole as
the
> suction would be reduced drastically) get sucked into the filter? Also
would
> be good for weak / ill fish so they don't get caught in the filter either?
> Just an idea, any comments anyone? Good luck and later!
>
>

[Daniel Morrow]

Bottom posted.
Charles wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:21:50 -0800, "Daniel Morrow"
> > wrote:
>
>> What about using a spray bar in reverse? That way water is brought
>> into the filter at the same rate as before but distributed over a
>> large area so no baby fish (as babies might be able to swim out of
>> the spray bar hole as the suction would be reduced drastically) get
>> sucked into the filter? Also would be good for weak / ill fish so
>> they don't get caught in the filter either? Just an idea, any
>> comments anyone? Good luck and later!
>>
> Restricting the imput to a filter is bad, can cause damage to the
> impeller. If you are certain that the same amount of water will come
> in without causing cavitation, then it should be okay. why not just
> put a sponge over the intake?

It was just an idea. One benefit would be for shallow
aquariums/vivariums/etc.. Also - a spray bar (possibly with a lot of extra
holes added) might not clog as fast as a sponge. Good luck and later!

[Jürgen Exner]

Daniel Morrow wrote:
> What about using a spray bar in reverse? That way water is brought
> into the filter at the same rate as before but distributed over a
> large area so no baby fish (as babies might be able to swim out of
> the spray bar hole as the suction would be reduced drastically) get
> sucked into the filter? Also would be good for weak / ill fish so
> they don't get caught in the filter either?

Did you check the EHEIM Pre-Filter 400462?
It has a large open sponge surface of maybe 8cm diameter and therefore the
velocity of the water in the intake is so slow that really any fish can
easily escape. At least as long as the fish is still moving at all.

jue

[Marco Schwarz]

Hi..

> What about using a spray bar in reverse? That way water is
> brought into the filter at the same rate as before but
> distributed over a large area so no baby fish (as babies
> might be able to swim out of the spray bar hole as the
> suction would be reduced drastically) get sucked into the
> filter? Also would be good for weak / ill fish so they
> don't get caught in the filter either? Just an idea, any
> comments anyone? Good luck and later!

The most lake fish don't prefer any water flow. Even the
most creek or river fish in nature would prefer to swim in
slow(er) moving water if they had any choice. That's the
reason why I'm convinced of "no filtering" or "slow
filtering" for many years now.. :-)

--
cu
Marco

[Daniel Morrow]

Bottom posted.
Jürgen Exner wrote:
> Daniel Morrow wrote:
>> What about using a spray bar in reverse? That way water is brought
>> into the filter at the same rate as before but distributed over a
>> large area so no baby fish (as babies might be able to swim out of
>> the spray bar hole as the suction would be reduced drastically) get
>> sucked into the filter? Also would be good for weak / ill fish so
>> they don't get caught in the filter either?
>
> Did you check the EHEIM Pre-Filter 400462?
> It has a large open sponge surface of maybe 8cm diameter and
> therefore the velocity of the water in the intake is so slow that
> really any fish can easily escape. At least as long as the fish is
> still moving at all.
>
> jue

Thanks jue! I will check it out. I am very impressed with the newer eheim
canister filters - I like the idea of absolutely no bypass. I will get one
one of these years but I need to wait until I save up some money first
(eheim's are out of my financial range right now but that might change
relatively soon, I love my fluval msfs, but even they are out of my range as
far as buying a backup goes) thanks and later!