Dead algae.. dos that reduce oxy levels?

"Courageous" wrote in message
...

Not sure of the exact size, but it's 13x13x, 1.5-3 feet deep.

Okay, I'll assume an average depth of 2.25 feet. Your pond is
13 x 13 x 2.25 x 7.48 = 3,160 gallons.

The spitter is a 2-3 foot tall gargoyle, ...

Hrm. A "spitter" is your only water flow? That doesn't sound like
it could be very much...

Here's a pic link to give you an idea.. the gargoyle can be lifted by 1
person, but it's easier with 2. For scale, the large boulder to the right
cannot be lifted or budged at all... it is about 4-5 ft square, and the
sundial near the spitted is a foot tall, maybe a tad higher. Our old
Christmas tree behind the pond stands about 7-8 ft at the top tip.

http://webpages.charter.net/gareee/Pond.jpg


--
Gareee's Homepage:
http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine.../mainframe.htm

Remove Delicious spam to reply

"Gareee©" wrote in message
...

"Courageous" wrote in message
...

Not sure of the exact size, but it's 13x13x, 1.5-3 feet deep.

Okay, I'll assume an average depth of 2.25 feet. Your pond is
13 x 13 x 2.25 x 7.48 = 3,160 gallons.

The spitter is a 2-3 foot tall gargoyle, ...

Hrm. A "spitter" is your only water flow? That doesn't sound like
it could be very much...

Here's a pic link to give you an idea.. the gargoyle can be lifted by 1
person, but it's easier with 2. For scale, the large boulder to the right
cannot be lifted or budged at all... it is about 4-5 ft square, and the
sundial near the spitted is a foot tall, maybe a tad higher. Our old
Christmas tree behind the pond stands about 7-8 ft at the top tip.

http://webpages.charter.net/gareee/Pond.jpg


Nice pond, but I think Courageous is right. You need much more water flow.
My puddle is only 500 imperial gallons and I have about 1500 gph split
between the water fall and the fountain.


--
Gareee's Homepage:
http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine.../mainframe.htm

Remove Delicious spam to reply

"Courageous" did the calculations and came up with:

Okay, I'll assume an average depth of 2.25 feet. Your pond is
13 x 13 x 2.25 x 7.48 = 3,160 gallons.

Having done my own figuring and fellow ponder's figuring of their own ponds
and then running a water meter, or salt calculator, we've found all to be
off by 20-50%. All those folds, curves and I wouldn't be surprised plant
containers (if it is an older pond) take up space.

http://webpages.charter.net/gareee/Pond.jpg

So with the math and the picture above I'm betting she has something over
2,000 gallons, and the only way that little filter is gonna work is to mass
plant the pond. My lily pond of 1,000 gallons has 12 water lilies, 2 lotus,
4 baskets of iris, 2 baskets of arrowhead, 1 lizard tail and a few water
hyacinths, plus bunches of anacharis.

It looks like you have the starts of a water fall to the right? Do you have
anyone mechanically inclined to help you do an out-of-the-pond filter
perhaps? I'm thinking plumbing similar to what my guys did for me (see
diagram on webpage under *My Filter*) where you go over the side and use
siphon effect. www.jjspond.us ~ jan

~Power to the Porg, Flow On!~

"~ janj JJsPond.us" wrote in message
...
"Courageous" did the calculations and came up with:

Okay, I'll assume an average depth of 2.25 feet. Your pond is
13 x 13 x 2.25 x 7.48 = 3,160 gallons.

Having done my own figuring and fellow ponder's figuring of their own
ponds
and then running a water meter, or salt calculator, we've found all to be
off by 20-50%. All those folds, curves and I wouldn't be surprised plant
containers (if it is an older pond) take up space.

http://webpages.charter.net/gareee/Pond.jpg

So with the math and the picture above I'm betting she has something over
2,000 gallons, and the only way that little filter is gonna work is to
mass
plant the pond. My lily pond of 1,000 gallons has 12 water lilies, 2
lotus,
4 baskets of iris, 2 baskets of arrowhead, 1 lizard tail and a few water
hyacinths, plus bunches of anacharis.

It looks like you have the starts of a water fall to the right? Do you
have
anyone mechanically inclined to help you do an out-of-the-pond filter
perhaps? I'm thinking plumbing similar to what my guys did for me (see
diagram on webpage under *My Filter*) where you go over the side and use
siphon effect. www.jjspond.us ~ jan

Yeah we'd talked about a waterfall on the right. I'm thinking it would be
better to have a lower one, and incorporate the rock on it's side, then to
drop totally off that boulder.

What I can probably do, is get a larger pump, and place that inside the in
pond filter as well.

I'm kinda in the boonies (Our city has a total population of only 6,000), so
pretty much what I can do is what I me myself.

I've seen some pumps in the chicago tools catalog that look like they might
do a waterfall.. or any online inexpensive alternatives would also be good.

BTW, we thought there were some larger baby fish in the pond, and it's
turned out they are salmanders or newts that have decided to visit!


--
Gareee's Homepage:
http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine.../mainframe.htm

Remove Delicious spam to reply

I've seen some pumps in the chicago tools catalog that look like they might
do a waterfall.. or any online inexpensive alternatives would also be good.

You really need to look at the unit cost of water moved. Cost of operations
can really get ya. The Sequence 750 is one of the most cost effective gallons-
moved-to-watts-burned pumps on the market.

C//

"Courageous" wrote in message
...

I've seen some pumps in the chicago tools catalog that look like they
might
do a waterfall.. or any online inexpensive alternatives would also be
good.

You really need to look at the unit cost of water moved. Cost of
operations
can really get ya. The Sequence 750 is one of the most cost effective
gallons-
moved-to-watts-burned pumps on the market.

Where's the best place to purchase it, and what kind of monthly costs am I
looking at?

--
Gareee's Homepage:
http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine.../mainframe.htm

Remove Delicious spam to reply

You really need to look at the unit cost of water moved. Cost of
operations can really get ya. The Sequence 750 is one of the most
cost effective gallons-moved-to-watts-burned pumps on the market.

Where's the best place to purchase it, and what kind of monthly
costs am I looking at?

It's 160 watts. As for what you pay for that, that's 160 watts
times 24 hours = 3.8 kilowatt hours per day. You move over 3000
gallons per hour at that price. Do note that Sequence pumps
aren't submersible; also, they aren't capable of driving large
head (height) applications. They are designed specifically
to move the maximum amount of water for the least price at
minimal head.

The best price I've seen on the pump is the "member's price"
at AZ Ponds (http://www.azponds.com). Please be aware that I
haven't actually bought anything from them, though.

With these pumps, it pays to shop. I've seen them priced well
over /double/ at some places.

C//

"Courageous" wrote in message
...

You really need to look at the unit cost of water moved. Cost of
operations can really get ya. The Sequence 750 is one of the most
cost effective gallons-moved-to-watts-burned pumps on the market.

Where's the best place to purchase it, and what kind of monthly
costs am I looking at?

It's 160 watts. As for what you pay for that, that's 160 watts
times 24 hours = 3.8 kilowatt hours per day. You move over 3000
gallons per hour at that price. Do note that Sequence pumps
aren't submersible; also, they aren't capable of driving large
head (height) applications. They are designed specifically
to move the maximum amount of water for the least price at
minimal head.

The best price I've seen on the pump is the "member's price"
at AZ Ponds (http://www.azponds.com). Please be aware that I
haven't actually bought anything from them, though.

With these pumps, it pays to shop. I've seen them priced well
over /double/ at some places.

I was thinking of adding a uv lamp to help eliminate the algae, (though
that's almost a non issue for now)

Can these be using in conjunction with a uv lamp?

Also, we were considering a waterfall (not huge), but the lift is about 4.5
feet.. can they handle that?

A concern I'm having, is how much constant water agitation we might end up
with.. the spitter, the bubblers, and now this as well.

Not a huge deal, but I don;t want it to look like there's a whirlpool in my
yard instead of a pond.. LOL!

--
Gareee's Homepage:
http://www.fortunecity.com/tattooine.../mainframe.htm

Remove Delicious spam to reply

YOu really do not need to make generalizationi statements such as
"Sequence are not made for high head applications" so evidently your
not really familiar with the entire line of Sequence
pumps..........Sequence makes a line of pumps that will pump up
against head with any other brands normally associated with pond
use.......Now if your going with their Value FLow or the 750 series
its the economy line of pumps.........and you get what you paya for in
regards to performanace and price.........

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:11:30 -0700, Courageous
wrote:

===
=== You really need to look at the unit cost of water moved. Cost of
=== operations can really get ya. The Sequence 750 is one of the most
=== cost effective gallons-moved-to-watts-burned pumps on the market.
===
===Where's the best place to purchase it, and what kind of monthly
===costs am I looking at?
===
===It's 160 watts. As for what you pay for that, that's 160 watts
===times 24 hours = 3.8 kilowatt hours per day. You move over 3000
===gallons per hour at that price. Do note that Sequence pumps
===aren't submersible; also, they aren't capable of driving large
===head (height) applications. They are designed specifically
===to move the maximum amount of water for the least price at
===minimal head.
===
===The best price I've seen on the pump is the "member's price"
===at AZ Ponds (http://www.azponds.com). Please be aware that I
===haven't actually bought anything from them, though.
===
===With these pumps, it pays to shop. I've seen them priced well
===over /double/ at some places.
===
===C//


==============================================
Put some color in your cheeks...garden naked!
"The original frugal ponder"
~~~~ }((((o ~~~~~~ }{{{{o ~~~~~~~ }(((((o

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 13:40:09 GMT, (Roy) wrote:

YOu really do not need to make generalizationi statements such as
"Sequence are not made for high head applications" ...

Actually, you are right. I was really just thinking of the 750's
and such.

C//