NetMax, your Continuous Gravel Vacuum ...

[Harry Muscle]

Hi NetMax, I just wanted to add some comments about your Continuous Gravel
Vacuum design. I had gotten some ideas from you a couple of weeks/month ago
about how to simplify priming a canister filter, and the design is virtually
identical to your Figure 2 in the Continuous Gravel Vacuum article, except
the filter input and output is reversed. So when I want to prime my
canister filter, I suck on the extra hose (valves being in the "Backwash"
setting, with input, output reversed, everything else identical to your
image). This gets the siphon going and fills the whole canister filter with
water.

The Backwash idea (exactly as you have it) might actually work as a primer
starter too, however, I can see a lot of cases where people might not be
able to use the output as an input during the backwash. For example, you
might have your spray bar above the water level. Or you're afraid of
sucking up fish through the unprotected output hose, etc.

Harry

[NetMax]

"Harry Muscle" > wrote in message
...
> Hi NetMax, I just wanted to add some comments about your Continuous
Gravel
> Vacuum design. I had gotten some ideas from you a couple of
weeks/month ago
> about how to simplify priming a canister filter, and the design is
virtually
> identical to your Figure 2 in the Continuous Gravel Vacuum article,
except
> the filter input and output is reversed. So when I want to prime my
> canister filter, I suck on the extra hose (valves being in the
"Backwash"
> setting, with input, output reversed, everything else identical to your
> image). This gets the siphon going and fills the whole canister filter
with
> water.

Sounds right. Sometimes just opening the hose bib valve allows enough
water to flow, starting the prime by itself.

> The Backwash idea (exactly as you have it) might actually work as a
primer
> starter too, however, I can see a lot of cases where people might not
be
> able to use the output as an input during the backwash. For example,
you
> might have your spray bar above the water level. Or you're afraid of
> sucking up fish through the unprotected output hose, etc.

Regarding the priming, I thought of that when writing the piece, but
ironically, I never use that capability. Once a canister has backwash
capability, you don't really need to open it unless you have any chemical
media inside. If backwashed regularly, how often do you open a pool
filter for servicing? This is why I have two canisters running. The
antique Fluval 201 is my backwashed gravel vacuum filter (and not having
to open it often is a good thing if you are familiar with the 201 ;~).
I've been serving the 201 once a year (mostly to clear out the snails
which clog the spraybar). My regular water filtering is done with
conventional canisters (ie: 304 or 2213), and they run a lot cleaner now.

You're absolutely correct regarding backwashing with a spray bar above
the waterline (wouldn't work), and I hope I did a good enough job
mentioning that in the article. I hadn't thought about sucking fish into
an open return hose (good point!). If that danger exists (fish are small
enough), slipping a sponge or draping a fishnet over the intake while
backwashing would be a good idea. Thanks Harry. I'll revisit the
article for your points.
--
http://www.NetMax.tk/


> Harry
>
>

[Harry Muscle]

"NetMax" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Muscle" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hi NetMax, I just wanted to add some comments about your Continuous
> Gravel
> > Vacuum design. I had gotten some ideas from you a couple of
> weeks/month ago
> > about how to simplify priming a canister filter, and the design is
> virtually
> > identical to your Figure 2 in the Continuous Gravel Vacuum article,
> except
> > the filter input and output is reversed. So when I want to prime my
> > canister filter, I suck on the extra hose (valves being in the
> "Backwash"
> > setting, with input, output reversed, everything else identical to your
> > image). This gets the siphon going and fills the whole canister filter
> with
> > water.
>
> Sounds right. Sometimes just opening the hose bib valve allows enough
> water to flow, starting the prime by itself.
>
SNIP
>
> Regarding the priming, I thought of that when writing the piece, but
> ironically, I never use that capability. Once a canister has backwash
> capability, you don't really need to open it unless you have any chemical
> media inside. If backwashed regularly, how often do you open a
> filter for servicing? This is why I have two canisters running. The
> antique Fluval 201 is my backwashed gravel vacuum filter (and not having
> to open it often is a good thing if you are familiar with the 201 ;~).
> I've been serving the 201 once a year (mostly to clear out the snails
> which clog the spraybar). My regular water filtering is done with
> conventional canisters (ie: 304 or 2213), and they run a lot cleaner now.
>
> You're absolutely correct regarding backwashing with a spray bar above
> the waterline (wouldn't work), and I hope I did a good enough job
> mentioning that in the article. I hadn't thought about sucking fish into
> an open return hose (good point!). If that danger exists (fish are small
> enough), slipping a sponge or draping a fishnet over the intake while
> backwashing would be a good idea. Thanks Harry. I'll revisit the
> article for your points.
> --
> http://www.NetMax.tk/
>
>
> > Harry
> >

Hey NetMax, I just thought of a really good design that uses your backwash
idea/design, but allows you to still use the intake tube to suck the water.
This description is referring to Figure 2 on your Continuous Gravel Vacuum
article. Imagine adding a connection (with a valve in it) between the point
just above your filter's output (below the valve on the output line) and the
point just above the top valve on your input line. For normal operation the
valve in this new connection stays closed. But when you want to backwash
your filter, you set the valves to the way the "Backwash Filter" diagram
shows, but close the "left most" valve in the diagram and open the valve on
this new connection. Now you have water entering via the input hose, but
backwashing the filter.

Let me know if that makes sense, if it doesn't maybe you can tell me where I
could upload a picture to explain it better. This would be a perfect
solution for those who for one reason or another can't use their output line
to suck water.

Hope this idea makes it to your website :) :) ... if it does, feel free to
mention my name :)

Harry Muscle

[NetMax]

"Harry Muscle" > wrote in message
...
> "NetMax" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > "Harry Muscle" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Hi NetMax, I just wanted to add some comments about your Continuous
> > Gravel
> > > Vacuum design. I had gotten some ideas from you a couple of
> > weeks/month ago
> > > about how to simplify priming a canister filter, and the design is
> > virtually
> > > identical to your Figure 2 in the Continuous Gravel Vacuum article,
> > except
> > > the filter input and output is reversed. So when I want to prime
my
> > > canister filter, I suck on the extra hose (valves being in the
> > "Backwash"
> > > setting, with input, output reversed, everything else identical to
your
> > > image). This gets the siphon going and fills the whole canister
filter
> > with
> > > water.
> >
> > Sounds right. Sometimes just opening the hose bib valve allows
enough
> > water to flow, starting the prime by itself.
> >
> SNIP
> >
> > Regarding the priming, I thought of that when writing the piece, but
> > ironically, I never use that capability. Once a canister has
backwash
> > capability, you don't really need to open it unless you have any
chemical
> > media inside. If backwashed regularly, how often do you open a
> > filter for servicing? This is why I have two canisters running. The
> > antique Fluval 201 is my backwashed gravel vacuum filter (and not
having
> > to open it often is a good thing if you are familiar with the 201
;~).
> > I've been serving the 201 once a year (mostly to clear out the snails
> > which clog the spraybar). My regular water filtering is done with
> > conventional canisters (ie: 304 or 2213), and they run a lot cleaner
now.
> >
> > You're absolutely correct regarding backwashing with a spray bar
above
> > the waterline (wouldn't work), and I hope I did a good enough job
> > mentioning that in the article. I hadn't thought about sucking fish
into
> > an open return hose (good point!). If that danger exists (fish are
small
> > enough), slipping a sponge or draping a fishnet over the intake while
> > backwashing would be a good idea. Thanks Harry. I'll revisit the
> > article for your points.
> > --
> > http://www.NetMax.tk/
> >
> >
> > > Harry
> > >
>
> Hey NetMax, I just thought of a really good design that uses your
backwash
> idea/design, but allows you to still use the intake tube to suck the
water.
> This description is referring to Figure 2 on your Continuous Gravel
Vacuum
> article. Imagine adding a connection (with a valve in it) between the
point
> just above your filter's output (below the valve on the output line)
and the
> point just above the top valve on your input line. For normal
operation the
> valve in this new connection stays closed. But when you want to
backwash
> your filter, you set the valves to the way the "Backwash Filter"
diagram
> shows, but close the "left most" valve in the diagram and open the
valve on
> this new connection. Now you have water entering via the input hose,
but
> backwashing the filter.
>
> Let me know if that makes sense, if it doesn't maybe you can tell me
where I
> could upload a picture to explain it better. This would be a perfect
> solution for those who for one reason or another can't use their output
line
> to suck water.
>
> Hope this idea makes it to your website :) :) ... if it does, feel free
to
> mention my name :)
>
> Harry Muscle

I understand your explanation perfectly, but I'm a bit sceptical as to
how effective it will be in actual use. During tank draining, some
detritus gets loosened from the stones and the UGF plates, and flows into
the bucket. If you use this flow to backwash, then the detritus would
flow through the impeller and into the outbound side of the filter. Then
when the filter is turned back to normal operation, this detritus will
get blown into the aquarium's water column. hmmm....

Perhaps if you did the tank draining first (dislodging detritus into the
pail), and then did your backwash after, this would work well enough.
Time to get busy with new drawings :o) The only drawback is that every
additional shut-off valve causes an exponential increase in the
probability of forgetting one in the wrong position ;~) Then your filter
usually goes anaerobic :-( ... (another reason to always use more than 1
filter).
--
http://www.NetMax.tk/

[NetMax]

"NetMax" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Harry Muscle" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "NetMax" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > "Harry Muscle" > wrote in message
> > > ...
<snip>

> > Let me know if that makes sense, if it doesn't maybe you can tell me
> where I
> > could upload a picture to explain it better. This would be a perfect
> > solution for those who for one reason or another can't use their
output
> line
> > to suck water.
> >
> > Hope this idea makes it to your website :) :) ... if it does, feel
free
> to
> > mention my name :)
> >
> > Harry Muscle
>
> I understand your explanation perfectly, but I'm a bit sceptical as to
> how effective it will be in actual use. During tank draining, some
> detritus gets loosened from the stones and the UGF plates, and flows
into
> the bucket. If you use this flow to backwash, then the detritus would
> flow through the impeller and into the outbound side of the filter.
Then
> when the filter is turned back to normal operation, this detritus will
> get blown into the aquarium's water column. hmmm....
>
> Perhaps if you did the tank draining first (dislodging detritus into
the
> pail), and then did your backwash after, this would work well enough.
> Time to get busy with new drawings :o) The only drawback is that every
> additional shut-off valve causes an exponential increase in the
> probability of forgetting one in the wrong position ;~) Then your
filter
> usually goes anaerobic :-( ... (another reason to always use more than
1
> filter).



done Harry. Let me know if I didn't get it right.
http://www.2cah.com/netmax/diy_projects/vac/vac.shtml
NetMax

[Harry Muscle]

"NetMax" > wrote in message
. ..
> "NetMax" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > "Harry Muscle" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "NetMax" > wrote in message
> > > . ..
> > > > "Harry Muscle" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> <s >
>
> > > t me know if that makes sense, if it doesn't maybe you can tell me
> > where I
> > > could upload a picture to explain it better. This would be a perfect
> > > solution for those who for one reason or another can't use their
> output
> > line
> > > to suck water.
> > >
> > > Hope this idea makes it to your website :) :) ... if it does, feel
> free
> > to
> > > mention my name :)
> > >
> > > Harry Muscle
> >
> > I understand your explanation perfectly, but I'm a bit sceptical as to
> > how effective it will be in actual use. During tank draining, some
> > detritus gets loosened from the stones and the UGF plates, and flows
> into
> > the bucket. If you use this flow to backwash, then the detritus would
> > flow through the impeller and into the outbound side of the filter.
> Then
> > when the filter is turned back to normal operation, this detritus will
> > get blown into the aquarium's water column. hmmm....
> >
> > Perhaps if you did the tank draining first (dislodging detritus into
> the
> > pail), and then did your backwash after, this would work well enough.
> > Time to get busy with new drawings :o) The only drawback is that every
> > additional shut-off valve causes an exponential increa the
> > probability of forgetting one in the wrong position ;~) Then your
> filter
> > usually goes anaerobic :-( ... (another reason to always use more than
> 1
> > filter).
>
>
>
> done Harry. Let me know if I didn't get it right.
> http://www.2cah.com/netmax/diy_projects/vac/vac.shtml
> NetMax
>
>

Looks correct to me. Thanks for including that on your site.

Good point about possibly sucking even more stuff into the filter during a
backwash with my design. Great idea about draining the tank and UGF plates
first. I think one of the most practical cases where my design will work is
for tho dividuals who are not trying to design a continues gravel
vacuum, but instead a filter backwash system so they don't have to clean
their filter as often (especially for those filters that are a pain to
clean).

Thanks,
Harry