Have you ever measured real water pump output flow rate?

[Pszemol]

I made a little experiment this morning in my bathroom...
I hooked up two pumps to my future sump to compare their
performance in pumping water into InstantOcean 6 1/2 g
bucket positioned in the bathtub with the upper edge
about 4 feet above the pump and my findings quite
disappointed me: neither pump showed their expected
efficiency in pumping water... How can we explain this?

Let me give you some details:

1st pump was Little Giant 3-MDQ-SC ($115) with the theoretic
maximum flow of 700gph and the flow at 4' in the range of 630.

2nd one was QuietOne 3000 ($39) with the flow a little bit weaker.

Both pumps had different fittings so I used necessary couplings
and both were pumping water through 10 feet long 3/4" ID hose
to the bucket. I have measured the time with my clock 5 times
for each pump and skiping the one value which did not match
the rest ones the most the average value was calculated.

It took average 52 seconds to fill the bucket for the Little
Giant pump and on average 69 seconds for the same task for
Quiet One pump. Taken from the measurments calculated flows
were respectively 451gph and 339gph. Why are they so low?
Can it be the lenght of the hose or couple of PCV fittings
reduced the flow so dramaticaly or the manufacturer data is
misleading in that matter?

BTW - I used my wattmeter to measure the enregy consumption
in this setup for both pumps and the Little Giant was taking
in the range of 79-82W but QuietOne only 27-31W to do almost
the same job.

QuietOne is 1/3 the price of Little Giant and consumes less
than half of the electricity to do similar job... But is has
the design of regular powerhead with resin filled electrical
engine and the magnetic rotor inside the pump. Little Giant
has this "real inline pump" design with a separate motor
and magnetic driven impeller in the separate housing.

BTW - the little giant and quiet one are very similar with
the level of noise when compared with naked ear - I do not
have any decibele meter but they seem to be same loud with
the exception that QuietOne starts in a hard way with loud
click/sound while Little Giant starts in a very soft way
accelerating rpm during first second from turning it on.

So I would have two questions to the group:
1. what could be the reason for so small flow rate measured?
(550-600gph expected, 339-451 measured)
2. which pump would you recommend for the return pump for 30g reef?

[Aquatic-Care]

Pszemol,

Cool experiment. I have a flow chart for the Little giant 3MDQ-SC
and the GPH at 12' is 425 GPH with PSI 7.8. I don't know what size tubing
they used, but I would imagine if the fitting is for 3/4" they would test it
with 3/4". The 451 GPH you got sounds about right for 10'. They also make a
3MDQX-SC which is a circulating pump. You would get more GPH 450 @ 12', but
less PSI 6.1. The electrical consumption is .8 amps (80wts) for the 3MDQ-SC
and .9 (100wts) 3MDQX-SC.
I don't have a chart for Quiet One because I don't use them much. I
wouldn't be surprised that the power consumption for the Quiet One is less.
With a 30 gal. aquarium either pump will give you more than enough
circulation to turn the tank over 10 times. You will need a large return
hole to accommodate the water. 1" bulkhead fitting will only remove 400 GPH.
More than that and it will make an annoying sucking sound. You are only
limited by the drain.

Good Luck,
Aquacare


--
Aquatic-Care aquarium services
Freshwater/Sal****er
Since 1993
www.aquatic-care.com


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 1/8/2004

[skozzy]

I tried an experiment with a pump I have, the rating was 46litres a minute,
but when I used it to fill a 20 litre container it take 2 minutes and 14
seconds. That was through 10 meters of 19mm clear acrylic tube. Next test
was to hold onto the pump just below the water line and let the pump blow
the water out of the container. It emptied the container in 24 seconds.

So I guess the industry standard for measuring is without any restriction.
IE: No Hose, No Connections.


"Pszemol" > wrote in message
...
> I made a little experiment this morning in my bathroom...
> I hooked up two pumps to my future sump to compare their
> performance in pumping water into InstantOcean 6 1/2 g
> bucket positioned in the bathtub with the upper edge
> about 4 feet above the pump and my findings quite
> disappointed me: neither pump showed their expected
> efficiency in pumping water... How can we explain this?
>
> Let me give you some details:
>
> 1st pump was Little Giant 3-MDQ-SC ($115) with the theoretic
> maximum flow of 700gph and the flow at 4' in the range of 630.
>
> 2nd one was QuietOne 3000 ($39) with the flow a little bit weaker.
>
> Both pumps had different fittings so I used necessary couplings
> and both were pumping water through 10 feet long 3/4" ID hose
> to the bucket. I have measured the time with my clock 5 times
> for each pump and skiping the one value which did not match
> the rest ones the most the average value was calculated.
>
> It took average 52 seconds to fill the bucket for the Little
> Giant pump and on average 69 seconds for the same task for
> Quiet One pump. Taken from the measurments calculated flows
> were respectively 451gph and 339gph. Why are they so low?
> Can it be the lenght of the hose or couple of PCV fittings
> reduced the flow so dramaticaly or the manufacturer data is
> misleading in that matter?
>
> BTW - I used my wattmeter to measure the enregy consumption
> in this setup for both pumps and the Little Giant was taking
> in the range of 79-82W but QuietOne only 27-31W to do almost
> the same job.
>
> QuietOne is 1/3 the price of Little Giant and consumes less
> than half of the electricity to do similar job... But is has
> the design of regular powerhead with resin filled electrical
> engine and the magnetic rotor inside the pump. Little Giant
> has this "real inline pump" design with a separate motor
> and magnetic driven impeller in the separate housing.
>
> BTW - the little giant and quiet one are very similar with
> the level of noise when compared with naked ear - I do not
> have any decibele meter but they seem to be same loud with
> the exception that QuietOne starts in a hard way with loud
> click/sound while Little Giant starts in a very soft way
> accelerating rpm during first second from turning it on.
>
> So I would have two questions to the group:
> 1. what could be the reason for so small flow rate measured?
> (550-600gph expected, 339-451 measured)
> 2. which pump would you recommend for the return pump for 30g reef?

[Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.]

"Pszemol" > verbositized:

>I made a little experiment this morning in my bathroom...
>I hooked up two pumps to my future sump to compare their
>performance in pumping water into InstantOcean 6 1/2 g
>bucket positioned in the bathtub with the upper edge
>about 4 feet above the pump and my findings quite
>disappointed me: neither pump showed their expected
>efficiency in pumping water... How can we explain this?
>
>Let me give you some details:
>
>1st pump was Little Giant 3-MDQ-SC ($115) with the theoretic
>maximum flow of 700gph and the flow at 4' in the range of 630.
>
>2nd one was QuietOne 3000 ($39) with the flow a little bit weaker.
>
>Both pumps had different fittings so I used necessary couplings
>and both were pumping water through 10 feet long 3/4" ID hose
>to the bucket. I have measured the time with my clock 5 times
>for each pump and skiping the one value which did not match
>the rest ones the most the average value was calculated.
>
>It took average 52 seconds to fill the bucket for the Little
>Giant pump and on average 69 seconds for the same task for
>Quiet One pump. Taken from the measurments calculated flows
>were respectively 451gph and 339gph. Why are they so low?
>Can it be the lenght of the hose or couple of PCV fittings
>reduced the flow so dramaticaly or the manufacturer data is
>misleading in that matter?
>
>BTW - I used my wattmeter to measure the enregy consumption
>in this setup for both pumps and the Little Giant was taking
>in the range of 79-82W but QuietOne only 27-31W to do almost
>the same job.
>
>QuietOne is 1/3 the price of Little Giant and consumes less
>than half of the electricity to do similar job... But is has
>the design of regular powerhead with resin filled electrical
>engine and the magnetic rotor inside the pump. Little Giant
>has this "real inline pump" design with a separate motor
>and magnetic driven impeller in the separate housing.
>
>BTW - the little giant and quiet one are very similar with
>the level of noise when compared with naked ear - I do not
>have any decibele meter but they seem to be same loud with
>the exception that QuietOne starts in a hard way with loud
>click/sound while Little Giant starts in a very soft way
>accelerating rpm during first second from turning it on.
>
>So I would have two questions to the group:
>1. what could be the reason for so small flow rate measured?
> (550-600gph expected, 339-451 measured)
>2. which pump would you recommend for the return pump for 30g reef?

Manufacturers ratings are based on an unrestricted flow with little to
no resistance from the piping.
In other words, they use very large pipes for the size of the pump
outlet. Normally more than double the size of the pump outlet!

I have had longer life and better results using the low end price
range potted pumps, than I have with the more expensive separate motor
pumps.

We also now use these little potted pumps in commercial hi-viscosity
pumping situations. The majority being Maxi-Jet 1000's. They consume
less electricity, last longer, and we can buy 5 of them for the price
of one standard line pump of the same output rating.
On really heavy liquids, we run two pumps back to back, one feeding
the other to keep the flowrate up where we need it for our commercial
purposes, and they still draw less electricity and last longer than
the original pump designed for the purpose.

In our case, the end bearings decompose from the fluids we are
pumping, but a gross of these bearings only cost about 18 bucks. So
we replace them once a month during cleaning, whether we need to or
not. The O-rings don't seem to be affected.

TTUL
Gary

[Pszemol]

"Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr." > wrote in message ...
> Manufacturers ratings are based on an unrestricted flow with little to
> no resistance from the piping.
> In other words, they use very large pipes for the size of the pump
> outlet. Normally more than double the size of the pump outlet!

This is kind of misleading for the custommer, who usually
expect the pump rating at 4' match the plumbing system he
has at his fish tank.

> I have had longer life and better results using the low end price
> range potted pumps, than I have with the more expensive separate
> motor pumps.

That is what I am confused with... People are running very
expensive pumps but in my comparison QuietOne was just as
good as LittleGiant for the 1/3 price. Less space taken in
the cabinet, less electricity used to do the job, less heat
generated overall... And on top of this you say you have
better experience with this kind of pumps than with real
inline ones...

> We also now use these little potted pumps in commercial hi-viscosity
> pumping situations. The majority being Maxi-Jet 1000's. They consume
> less electricity, last longer, and we can buy 5 of them for the price
> of one standard line pump of the same output rating.
> On really heavy liquids, we run two pumps back to back, one feeding
> the other to keep the flowrate up where we need it for our commercial
> purposes, and they still draw less electricity and last longer than
> the original pump designed for the purpose.
>
> In our case, the end bearings decompose from the fluids we are
> pumping, but a gross of these bearings only cost about 18 bucks. So
> we replace them once a month during cleaning, whether we need to or
> not. The O-rings don't seem to be affected.

MaxiJet 1000? Did not know they make it... We have MJ900 and MJ1200
available for the fish hobby. Is the MJ1000 somewhere in the middle?
What is its electricity consumption? I find MJ900 much more efficient
than MJ1200 comparing watts used to flow in gph. So for free powerheads
it is much better to have water moving with three MJ900 than two MJ1200.
I have listed my findings about powerheads efficiency in November last
year on this group:
In this comparison MJ900 is almost twice more efficient than MJ1200
hawing index Flow/Watts 27 when MJ1200 has it only 14.75...

[Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.]

"Pszemol" > verbositized:

>This is kind of misleading for the custommer, who usually
>expect the pump rating at 4' match the plumbing system he
>has at his fish tank.

Amen! But all companies do whatever it takes to get their ratings the
highest, anyway they possibly can. It's akin to the labels on food
products! Who on this planet eats what they call a "serving"?


>That is what I am confused with... People are running very
>expensive pumps but in my comparison QuietOne was just as
>good as LittleGiant for the 1/3 price. Less space taken in
>the cabinet, less electricity used to do the job, less heat
>generated overall... And on top of this you say you have
>better experience with this kind of pumps than with real
>inline ones...

I have used everything from Little Giant and Hydrothruster II, to Mag
Drive and Generic. With Little Giant we have had problems with
burnout, oil leaks, housing corrosion, etc.
With many other externals (separate pump and motor combinations), we
have had problems with bearings and seals and on occasion winding
corrosion and failure.

After using several brands in aquaria, including reefs, and for
commercial use, we have had the lowest failure rate using Maxi-Jet
pumps. As long as they do not have a manufacturers defect, and every
so often a whole batch of them or some near the end of a lot will have
potting defects.
So I might suggest if you buy Maxi-Jet pumps, that you pop the back
cover off and make sure there is not exposed rubber band and that the
potting material completely covers the unit.
Of those we had that failed, every single one had a rubber band
exposed that was not covered by the potting material. As such, the
rubber band would quickly decay, allowing sal****er to get to the
winding and pretty soon, poof.
The rubber band is used to hold the thermal sensor against the winding
so it doesn't drift away from it while it is filled with potting
material.

>MaxiJet 1000? Did not know they make it... We have MJ900 and MJ1200
>available for the fish hobby. Is the MJ1000 somewhere in the middle?

And here I didn't know they made anything above the Maxi-Jet 1000!
Of course, it's been a long time since we have had to buy any new
ones, the last case was purchased around 1995/96. The ones we have
just keep going like the Energizer Bunny.
We also have several of the larger size Mag-Drive pumps also, but as
they go belly up, we replace them with two Maxi-Jet's back to back.

If you don't have a lot of head pressure to have to deal with, you
can't beat those little Maxi-Jet's for moving liquid from one place to
another. If you need head pressure, the Mag-Drive pumps are a good
alternative.

>What is its electricity consumption? I find MJ900 much more efficient
>than MJ1200 comparing watts used to flow in gph. So for free powerheads
>it is much better to have water moving with three MJ900 than two MJ1200.
>I have listed my findings about powerheads efficiency in November last
>year on this group:
>In this comparison MJ900 is almost twice more efficient than MJ1200
>hawing index Flow/Watts 27 when MJ1200 has it only 14.75...

I will agree that some other pumps move water at a lower power
consumption than the Maxi-Jet 1000 which eats more electricity than
normal, but it also has a much higher head pressure than all the rest
too, which must also be considered.

M-J gph watts
250 78 5
500 153 7.5
750 217 8.5
1000 265 20

For example: Two 500's at 153 gph each should be able to pump 306
gph.
Now, lets raise the viscosity of the fluid being pumped and move the
head up to 4 feet.
The 500's won't cut it, not even three of them back to back.
But the 1000 doesn't even grunt at the harder work!

I was using mainly 750's in my reef aquaria as they added much less
heat to the system than the 1000's do, which is a consideration in
that application.

But if you switch to hydroponic applications and/or high viscosity
liquids where temp is not a concern or even a benefit, the flowrate of
the 750's drop considerably. Whereas the 1000's will drop only a
small amount, sometimes not even negligible.

So, if it takes 3 750's to move the same amount of heavy liquid, your
better off with the 1000 where one will do the trick at lower energy
consumption.

But you are wise to consider the wattage each pump consumes as wattage
used converts directly to heat.

Maxi-Jet's shut off, rather than burn up, if they run dry! Which is
also another consideration, if they are used in unattended pumping
situations.

We have had several Rio 800's, 211 gph, 12 watt running back to back
in order to move some of our heavier liquids. They are a good little
pump too! But they are more on a par with the M-J 750 pump which
pumps 217 and only uses 8.5 watts.

I don't know what Maxi-Jet's cost for sure these days, I have seen
them from $29.95 all the way up to over $45.00, but we only paid like
$14.98 each for them through an aquatic retailer, by the case, in
1995/96. I think by the each, they were something like $24.95 at
retail back then.

For most of our purposes, the 1000's are almost too powerful, and on
some fluids, the tubing must be constricted to slow them down a bit,
but the 750's don't have the necessary ooomph to get the heavy fluids
moving, and adding more of them seems to defeat the purpose entirely.

TTUL
Gary

[Aquatic-Care]

Gary,

> Manufacturers ratings are based on an unrestricted flow with little to
> no resistance from the piping.
> In other words, they use very large pipes for the size of the pump
> outlet. Normally more than double the size of the pump outlet!

I would have guessed wrong. I thought that the pump would be tested with the
same size hose that the connection called for. This is misleading..!! Makes
it tough to choose a pump properly. I will stow this tid-bit of information
for my next installation.

aquacare





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 1/8/2004

[Pszemol]

"Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr." > wrote in message ...
> "Pszemol" > verbositized:
>
> >This is kind of misleading for the custommer, who usually
> >expect the pump rating at 4' match the plumbing system he
> >has at his fish tank.
>
> Amen! But all companies do whatever it takes to get their ratings the
> highest, anyway they possibly can. It's akin to the labels on food
> products! Who on this planet eats what they call a "serving"?

:-))

> I have used everything from Little Giant and Hydrothruster II, to Mag
> Drive and Generic. With Little Giant we have had problems with
> burnout, oil leaks, housing corrosion, etc.
> With many other externals (separate pump and motor combinations), we
> have had problems with bearings and seals and on occasion winding
> corrosion and failure.

I sent my LittleGiant pump back to the store today.
I hope I will not regret my decision to use QuietOne 3000 instead.
From what I hear from you and what I have read til now I think I won't.

> And here I didn't know they made anything above the Maxi-Jet 1000!
[..]
> I will agree that some other pumps move water at a lower power
> consumption than the Maxi-Jet 1000 which eats more electricity than
> normal, but it also has a much higher head pressure than all the rest
> too, which must also be considered.
>
> M-J gph watts
> 250 78 5
> 500 153 7.5
> 750 217 8.5
> 1000 265 20

From the list above I would guess that they change numbering and we
have model numbers 900 and 1200 consuming the same as old 750 and 1000.
So we can expect they did some improvements to the wet side of the
pump but the motor stayed the same with its max power consumption...
For what you are saying about 1000 all seems to apply to todays 1200
and whatever you say about 750 seems to apply to 900. Keep it in mind
when you be ready to order the next box of pumps for you :-))

> I don't know what Maxi-Jet's cost for sure these days, I have seen
> them from $29.95 all the way up to over $45.00, but we only paid like
> $14.98 each for them through an aquatic retailer, by the case, in
> 1995/96. I think by the each, they were something like $24.95 at
> retail back then.

They go "on sale" from time to time and this is te time I try to order
them, but regular price at www.petsolutions.com is $18.99 for model 900
and $20.99 for each for model 1200 - www.drsfostersmith.com is even cheaper:
$15.99 for the smaller one and $18.69 for 1200. This is pretty cheap considering
you payed price 'by the case'. Hard competition benefits the custommer :-)

> For most of our purposes, the 1000's are almost too powerful, and on
> some fluids, the tubing must be constricted to slow them down a bit,
> but the 750's don't have the necessary ooomph to get the heavy fluids
> moving, and adding more of them seems to defeat the purpose entirely.

Running in reef as a powerhead we do not need big pressure like
is needed for high head applications. So for powerhead is it better
to use 2 model 900 with little less flow but less than 1/2 the wattage
than one model 1200 with little more flow but twice the wattage.

[Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.]

"Pszemol" > verbositized:

>I sent my LittleGiant pump back to the store today.
>I hope I will not regret my decision to use QuietOne 3000 instead.
>From what I hear from you and what I have read til now I think I won't.

I shouldn't say this, but in my fathers business they sold Little
Giant pumps for decades, for fountain use.
A proper (to code) hard installation of the pump voids the warranty.
He sold enough of these pumps over the years that he could demand
refunds for defective pumps, in a roundabout way, honoring the
warranty on a personal level that Little Giant would not honor
themselves via the customer.

I don't have any paperwork handy to look up the models that gave him
the most grief, but it was a good percentage of them.

In the field of hydroponics, we use Maxi-Jets more than any other
brand and have the least amount of problems.

If you are familiar with our AZ-NO3 product, Maxi-Jet 1000s are used
to feed the product from the cooled steam kettles to the packaging
machine reservoir, and twin Maxi-Jet 1000s running back to back feed
the bottle filling injector heads, which are roughly 4 feet above the
reservoir tanks low level point. The viscosity of the AZ-NO3 product
is as high as it can get without the product turning into solid
crystals. We have had only one Maxi-Jet 1000 quit functioning in
roughly 3 years used for these applications.

>From the list above I would guess that they change numbering and we
>have model numbers 900 and 1200 consuming the same as old 750 and 1000.
>So we can expect they did some improvements to the wet side of the
>pump but the motor stayed the same with its max power consumption...
>For what you are saying about 1000 all seems to apply to todays 1200
>and whatever you say about 750 seems to apply to 900. Keep it in mind
>when you be ready to order the next box of pumps for you :-))

Thank You, I will!

Now that you mention it, the new impellers for the Maxi-Jet's are
slightly larger than the old ones, so they do have a little less
bypass loss. This is good in one sense, but in another, it adds extra
work to the pumps in our applications. We continually stop the flow
of liquid while the bottles shift under the nozzles.

>They go "on sale" from time to time and this is te time I try to order
>them, but regular price at www.petsolutions.com is $18.99 for model 900
>and $20.99 for each for model 1200 - www.drsfostersmith.com is even cheaper:
>$15.99 for the smaller one and $18.69 for 1200. This is pretty cheap considering
>you payed price 'by the case'. Hard competition benefits the custommer :-)

We probably could have purchased them at wholesale from one of our
vendors, but we like to support the retailers whenever possible. They
usually give us great quantity breaks on most things, while still
turning a little profit that they may have otherwise not seen.

As far as consumables and raw products, we have to buy those as
cheaply as possible to keep the eventual product cost at the consumer
level as low as possible.

>Running in reef as a powerhead we do not need big pressure like
>is needed for high head applications. So for powerhead is it better
>to use 2 model 900 with little less flow but less than 1/2 the wattage
>than one model 1200 with little more flow but twice the wattage.

Agreed, and it's also safer for the aquaria too! If one should fail,
at least the other will usually keep some water flowing, if they are
running back to back.

I had a sump in my basement that fed an aquarium in my living room.
This is where I was originally using the Hydrothruster II. Six
Maxi-Jets now handle this with ease!
But not after we had to deal with a priming issue with the first
attempt and changing the whole lift setup a couple of times to get it
humming the way we wanted it.
Basically meaning, start-up after a short power outage had to be
automatic and without human intervention.
In a sense, the system we used was akin to foot valves to prevent
backdrain of the system during an outage. Except they contain
standpipes in place of foot valves which added to much head pressure.

TTUL
Gary

[Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.]

"Aquatic-Care" > verbositized:

>Gary,
>
>> Manufacturers ratings are based on an unrestricted flow with little to
>> no resistance from the piping.
>> In other words, they use very large pipes for the size of the pump
>> outlet. Normally more than double the size of the pump outlet!
>
>I would have guessed wrong. I thought that the pump would be tested with the
>same size hose that the connection called for. This is misleading..!! Makes
>it tough to choose a pump properly. I will stow this tid-bit of information
>for my next installation.

I would venture to guess that a Maxi-Jet's flow rate at the given
height for their test is done using the Maxi-Jet output feeding
directly into a 1-1/2 inch to 2 inch standpipe.

I used all 1 inch tubing for most of my reef plumbing and it made a
BIG difference, especially on the feed from the sump up to the tank.
A 3/4 inch hose, after about 3 months of use, even with monthly
cleaning, really seems to slow down quite a lot.

If you check in the dishwasher section of your hardware store, you
will find a black neoprene reducer with two hose clamps to bring you
from the output size of the Maxi-Jet up to 1 inch PVC. I have not
found one yet that goes from the output size up to 1-1/4 or I would
have gone that route instead.

Another alternative is a rubber grommet placed into a PVC pipe cap on
the lower end of your vertical lift tube. This would be slid over the
Maxi-Jet's output fitting.

You've probably heard me say this before, but keep the current in your
tank with the natural flow of the water. In north America this is
counterclockwise, down under (Australia) it is clockwise.

TTUL
Gary

[Ed Greco]

> You've probably heard me say this before, but keep the current in your
> tank with the natural flow of the water. In north America this is
> counterclockwise, down under (Australia) it is clockwise.
>
> TTUL
> Gary

The natural flow of water? A fish tank is too small to exhibit Coriolan
tendencies. If you are refering to something else, please explain...

[Pszemol]

"Ed Greco" > wrote in message ...
> The natural flow of water? A fish tank is too small to exhibit Coriolan
> tendencies. If you are refering to something else, please explain...

http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~dvandom/Edu/newcor.html :-)

[Richard Reynolds]

> > The natural flow of water? A fish tank is too small to exhibit Coriolan
> > tendencies. If you are refering to something else, please explain...
>
> http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~dvandom/Edu/newcor.html :-)

I think what he is saying is that even though those forces exist, they do not exist in a
large enough scale to really effect a fish tank.

and they may or may not, I have not spent the time trying to figure it out, I do have a
125 gal grow out pond that spins "backwards" and it does so with ease so my vote as if it
mattered, is for the volume of water we have, this will not effect pump performance. if
you read the section 5.2 in your link it might explain this a little.

--
Richard Reynolds

[wolfhedd]

yes, 10 feet is alot IMO, thats where all the pressure loss is going. with
psi rating, they dont rate what length that was, and psi drops with length
unless piping is RIGID, and water is HEAVY.
wolfhedd.

"nanoreef" > wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
> Pszemol may have written:
>
> > So I would have two questions to the group:
> > 1. what could be the reason for so small flow rate measured?
> > (550-600gph expected, 339-451 measured)
>
> The manufacturer numbers are probably based on 1.5" pipe. Quick and
> dirty calculations from a fluid dynamics text book show that 10feet of
> 0.75" dia pipe will add about 1.7feet to the apearent height. The same
> calculations for 1.5" pipe add 0.06feet (ie nothing). 1" pipe would
> add about 0.5feet. That is a pretty strong argument for using 1" pipe.
>
> cheers.

[Gary V. Deutschmann, Sr.]

Hi Ed

Actually its Coriolis Force, named after its discoverer
Gustave-Gaspard Coriolis in 1835.

It has been proven to affect all bodies of liquid regardless of size!

Drain your sink of less than 1/2 gallon or flush your toilet of 1.6
gallons, these are much smaller than the majority of aquaria.

Ascher H. Shaprio proved the effect again in 1962 at MIT and Lloyd
Terfethen did the same at the U of Sydney in 1965.

In an aquarium, the effect may be miniscule, but it is still there
just the same. So why not keep your aquarium flowing with the natural
order of things, rather than trying to go against mother nature.

As an aside, a major contractor built a rather large fountain and did
not take into account Coriolis Force or the Curvature of the Earth.

When the fountain was filled, water did not pour over the length as
intended, but flowed only out the center. With the greater part of
the water at the apex of the counterclockwise rotation. Of course,
this was a very large fountain too.
However, the same effects would be found in even the smallest
fountain, but to such a reduced degree that it would probably not be
noticable without the most accurate test equipment.

The moon also plays a very miniscule part on our aquaria. On large
public aquaria a difference of as much as 1/2 inch can be noted
between neap tide and full tide. On a large body of water, the water
level in a large aquarium can be determined with fair accuracy using
either the Rule of Twelves or the Rule of Sevens.

TTUL
Gary

[Richard Reynolds]

> The flow rate (pressure) is always affected by the length of the pipe
> regardless of pipe construction. The loss is due to friction. Pipe
> construction will affect friction. However the text book makes no
> distintion between any type of smooth walled pipe wether rigid or
> flexible. This suggests that the difference is negligible.

or you need a better text book :)

mine lists several differences for

vinyl tubing smooth (assumes straight and round piece)
vinyl bubing ribbed (assumes straight and round piece)
pvc
abs

a few more though off topic of aquaria
copper
cement
galvanized
.....

even vitrified clay :D

--
Richard Reynolds

[Pszemol]

"Richard Reynolds" > wrote in message news:6pBNb.9809$ct4.4099@lakeread05...
> or you need a better text book :)
>
> mine lists several differences for
>
> vinyl tubing smooth (assumes straight and round piece)
> vinyl bubing ribbed (assumes straight and round piece)
> pvc
> abs

So what are the differences for those?
What is the loss on 5 feet of rigid PVC compared
to stright smooth vinyl? Or to ribbed one?

[Richard Reynolds]

> So what are the differences for those?
> What is the loss on 5 feet of rigid PVC compared
> to stright smooth vinyl? Or to ribbed one?


shoulda known, ooh well :)

the tables require certain things so gona use 600gph & 3/4" and 1.5" pipe its also listed
as head loss / 100ft pipe, so you will have to figure out 5' from that.

as there are nearly 30 pages devoted to head loss in pipe so a sample of them.

material 3/4" 1.5"
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
smooth vinyl 43.3 1.5
ribbed vinyl 82 66
pvc 28.6 1
abs 30.5 1

of course the font you are using will probibly distort that table, so copy into notepad if
you want it to be a little better aligned



--
Richard Reynolds

[Pszemol]

"Richard Reynolds" > wrote in message news:KyCNb.9819$ct4.7978@lakeread05...
> shoulda known, ooh well :)
>
> the tables require certain things so gona use 600gph & 3/4" and 1.5" pipe its also listed
> as head loss / 100ft pipe, so you will have to figure out 5' from that.
>
> as there are nearly 30 pages devoted to head loss in pipe so a sample of them.
>
> material 3/4" 1.5"
> -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
> smooth vinyl 43.3 1.5
> ribbed vinyl 82 66
> pvc 28.6 1
> abs 30.5 1

Thank you. I know many people using ribbed vinyl pool hose for their
overflow boxes drainage... I see that smooth vinyl is much better.

Do you have in this table values for 1" as well?

> of course the font you are using will probibly distort that table,
> so copy into notepad if you want it to be a little better aligned

No, everything is fine. I learned long time ago newsgroups need to be
read with something like courier or any other not-proportional font
to reflect ASCII-arts or tables made up with ASCII characters...

[Richard Reynolds]

> Thank you. I know many people using ribbed vinyl pool hose for their
> overflow boxes drainage... I see that smooth vinyl is much better.

yea :)

> Do you have in this table values for 1" as well?

from 1/4" to 3" in 1/4" incriments

material 1"
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
smooth vinyl 15
ribbed vinyl 74.4
pvc 7.1
abs 7.1


> > of course the font you are using will probibly distort that table,
> > so copy into notepad if you want it to be a little better aligned
>
> No, everything is fine. I learned long time ago newsgroups need to be
> read with something like courier or any other not-proportional font
> to reflect ASCII-arts or tables made up with ASCII characters...

i figured you might, but didnt know who else would be checking it out.


--
Richard Reynolds

[Richard Reynolds]

and maybee a cya line about the fact the numbers are for clean pipe, clear water and for
the soft stuff it must be non crushed.

--
Richard Reynolds

[Pszemol]

"Richard Reynolds" > wrote in message news:AiFNb.9840$ct4.1163@lakeread05...
> and maybee a cya line about the fact the numbers are for clean pipe,
> clear water and for the soft stuff it must be non crushed.

I understand that old pipe will cover with slime from inside
and restrict flow more than new one, but how big change does it
make we are pumping sea-water instead clean one in the calculations?
How does it change the pump rating? I have made my test with
tap water - should I expect sea-water to behave anything differently?

[Richard Reynolds]

> I understand that old pipe will cover with slime from inside
> and restrict flow more than new one, but how big change does it
> make we are pumping sea-water instead clean one in the calculations?
> How does it change the pump rating? I have made my test with
> tap water - should I expect sea-water to behave anything differently?

on its own salt water shouldnt make a diff, some thing to consider is that those numbers
were for 100' of pipe even 5% wont effect most reef related useage. and I have no idea
what diff could be made from the slime on the inside


also as i was skimming the book for info on SW vs FW i ran across some interesting
formula's donno how well they do, the book is kinda sorta old :)

horsepower to raise water

horsepower = (gpm * sg * heatft) / 3960

sg = specific gravity of the water.



cost to pump water

$/hr = (gpm*headft*0.746*rate/kwh) / ( 3960*pump effiency * motor effiency)

external motor 90% good average
internal motor 95% good average

centrifical pump 70% good average


--
Richard Reynolds

[Pszemol]

Interesting... My own comparison between external motor (Little Giant 3-MC)
and centifugal pump (QuietOne 3000) shown much better efficiency of
the second one. They both pump almost the same amount of water per hour but
they differ in power consumption with a factor of 2 (LittleGiant=2xQuietOne).
Thanks Rich!

"Richard Reynolds" > wrote in message news:qlLNb.9921$ct4.9301@lakeread05...
> > I understand that old pipe will cover with slime from inside
> > and restrict flow more than new one, but how big change does it
> > make we are pumping sea-water instead clean one in the calculations?
> > How does it change the pump rating? I have made my test with
> > tap water - should I expect sea-water to behave anything differently?
>
> on its own salt water shouldnt make a diff, some thing to consider is that those numbers
> were for 100' of pipe even 5% wont effect most reef related useage. and I have no idea
> what diff could be made from the slime on the inside
>
>
> also as i was skimming the book for info on SW vs FW i ran across some interesting
> formula's donno how well they do, the book is kinda sorta old :)
>
> horsepower to raise water
>
> horsepower = (gpm * sg * heatft) / 3960
>
> sg = specific gravity of the water.
>
>
>
> cost to pump water
>
> $/hr = (gpm*headft*0.746*rate/kwh) / ( 3960*pump effiency * motor effiency)
>
> external motor 90% good average
> internal motor 95% good average
>
> centrifical pump 70% good average
>
>
> --
> Richard Reynolds
>
>
>

[Pszemol]

"Richard Reynolds" > wrote in message news:41FNb.9835$ct4.3225@lakeread05...
> > Thank you. I know many people using ribbed vinyl pool hose for their
> > overflow boxes drainage... I see that smooth vinyl is much better.
>
> yea :)
>
> > Do you have in this table values for 1" as well?
>
> from 1/4" to 3" in 1/4" incriments
>
> material 1"
> -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
> smooth vinyl 15
> ribbed vinyl 74.4
> pvc 7.1
> abs 7.1

I have applied what I learned from your book in my setup and I see
big difference! I have replaced my 3/4 return line constructed with
1"->3/4" reduction, 10' of 3/4" hose and two 90' 3/4" elbows with
2' of 1" hose and 1"-1.5" adaptor, 1.5" P-TRAP (180' elbow) and after
that 1.5" to 3/4" reduction and than 3/4" slip elbow and with
the same pump giving me before only 340gph now gives me probably
much more AMIRACLE overflow box ("prefilter box") cannot keep up
with the flow. BTW - what is the gph rating for this prefilter box?

I have to put this pump on valve now and I was worrying it will not
be enough :-))) I learned my lesson - even on small piping like ours
it makes a big difference what diameter of tube you use...

[Pszemol]

"Richard Reynolds" > wrote...
> from 1/4" to 3" in 1/4" incriments
>
> material 1"
> -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
> smooth vinyl 15
> ribbed vinyl 74.4
> pvc 7.1
> abs 7.1

You have mentioned ABS material above - is it safe to use it for
plumbing reef or not? And the same with CPVC - it is ok, too?

[Richard Reynolds]

> You have mentioned ABS material above - is it safe to use it for
> plumbing reef or not? And the same with CPVC - it is ok, too?

i responded in a new thread to this question in case you miss it :)

--
Richard Reynolds