![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to handle Off Topic Posts (i.e., Making a Killfile) | BryanB | General | 1 | June 7th 05 10:08 PM |
Idea for a veggie filter | WVNebJockey | General | 19 | May 22nd 05 06:19 AM |
Filter advice | Cheryl | General | 19 | July 10th 04 04:01 AM |
Filtration | Destroyallx | General (alternative) | 3 | May 15th 04 08:47 AM |
Odd Filter Idea | Ben | Tech | 2 | July 30th 03 10:20 AM |