I may have miscalculated the filter volume. The filter is a fibreglass multibay from Fiveacre Koi Supplies sized at 3000 gallons. Many other dealers around here sell them with similar capacities noted. I converted a matting bay for K1. It is made up of:
600 dia vortex (static K1 conversion planned)
over a wier and down through six brushes (may change after vortex conversion)
Up through fluid 50l K1 in a 550x550 bay
Over wier, down chute and up through 550x550 bay with matting cartridge
All dims are approximate.
This is the primary filter and is what it is because nothing else would fit. Additional filtration is planned including TT on skimmer line.
It is not the pond turnover I was worried about Chita, it is the speed it would be going through the filter which will increase further with a bigger pump.
Ted's Pond upgrade
Moderators: B.Scott, vippymini, Gazza, Manky Sanke
filter
Good morning
Just a few thoughts
The nexus is supposed to be state of the art and will filter a koi pond up to 7500 gallons, if one works out the ammount of water it holds your filter system from 5acre will not fall far short of that, therfore if you have the equivelent ammount of K1 in your system it will act in a similar manner,
However there are other factors firstly your pond is smaller and the ammount of K1 required is based upon feed rates, therfore please do not get to sceintific about this, as suggested in previous posts,
Also as far as returns are concerned I have always found that a flow is required in a pond whether clockwise or anticlockwise makes no difference couple this with an aeriated bottom drain and currents become 3 dimensional to just shoot your returns into your pond is not in MHO the best way to do it as you will create dead spots within the pond.
Just a few thoughts
The nexus is supposed to be state of the art and will filter a koi pond up to 7500 gallons, if one works out the ammount of water it holds your filter system from 5acre will not fall far short of that, therfore if you have the equivelent ammount of K1 in your system it will act in a similar manner,
However there are other factors firstly your pond is smaller and the ammount of K1 required is based upon feed rates, therfore please do not get to sceintific about this, as suggested in previous posts,
Also as far as returns are concerned I have always found that a flow is required in a pond whether clockwise or anticlockwise makes no difference couple this with an aeriated bottom drain and currents become 3 dimensional to just shoot your returns into your pond is not in MHO the best way to do it as you will create dead spots within the pond.
The first part of my own maths were dubious on this one Ted so no worry!
The pump v filter throughput though is not really an issue Ted, for a number of reasons.
Firstly it's a simple matter to split and valve the feed, so that you can control the input to the filter. This should be standard practice anyway, as it also provides a bypass which can be very useful if not essential over time. You can feed the second flow to another filter, or simply return it to the pond to improve return currents, reducing settlement etc.
Secondly, many of the ideas muted for flow rates are based on antiquated knowledge, much higher flowrates than oft quoted can be of benefit. Additionally much depends on the overall system dynamics, whereas quoted specs are a middle of the road average scenario assumption. In this case there is a hope the filter is really suited to a 3000 gallon koi pond, as I've visited your suppliers website and had a peek, unfortunately they do not provide manufacturer details but sizes are available. On the plus side is that if such filters are purchased from a koi dealer one should be able to trust their suggested ratings.
I would expect that to contain around 750 ltrs, you could therefore be right with your 550 ish net, after media. Why I am not happy with the 3000 gallon koi pond rating is that the vortex is too small to be efficient. There is one rule in filtration which causes many problems, a filter really is only as good as it's weakest link. However with a simple 1 hour mod costing a few pounds you can double the vortex efficiency.
I would now take a look at the media side of things, in a submerged media filter it's essential to remove all but the invisible matter from the water prior to the bio stages for optimum results. Each filter should be set up to accomodate this so far as is possible, so any suggestions I make for media and location are based on that principle.
I will explain later if required how to hugely improve vortex performance, but as to media, I think you have the 3 bay unit and will continue on that assumption. Incidentally, any improvement in one area of a filter system will almost always improve the other stages.
With the vortex mod you will not require a brush bay, nor will you have to sacrifice the "vortex" action, indeed the mod will enhance it. In a 3 bay filter I would deploy flocor in bay 1, as this will remove huge amounts of fines prior to the bio stages, go for a size around the 30mm mark if possible. I have heard it said that K1 has similar capabilities, though I've always found flocor to be very efficient plus it's cheap and simple. I also prefer to seperate mechanical and bio filtration wherever possible, I see K1 as a compromise in that respect, though apparently a very good one.
In the other two bays I'd use Japmat, though if this was the only filter system I may consider using a different media in each bay, one of the lava rocks in the 2nd bay with Japmat in the final bay for example. I can provide the rationales if required. I have spent several years playing with multibays, there are numerous ways to set them up, but only a few which provide optimum results. An ORP / REDOX meter is essential to ascertain optimum filter setup and configuration, all suggestions are based on my own tests conducted over time using this method to support findings.
I think you have to assume the supplier rating is reasonably correct in this case, probably however rated at a 2 hour turnover rate, I prefer much more. In which event I would suggest a flowrate of 1500 gph would be default, but after the small mod to the vortex I would expect to run that unit at around 2200 gph with excellent results.
So, allowing for line losses an Aquamax 15000 or 16000 would do superbly, with very little to spare. Your 10,000 would then do nicely for the additional filtration subsequently. I would suggest before you spend loads of money on a trickle or shower system that you add a cheap sieve to a skimmer and leave it for a while, providing you have decent air delivery to pond and filter bio stages you may be pleasantly surprised.
Chi
The pump v filter throughput though is not really an issue Ted, for a number of reasons.
Firstly it's a simple matter to split and valve the feed, so that you can control the input to the filter. This should be standard practice anyway, as it also provides a bypass which can be very useful if not essential over time. You can feed the second flow to another filter, or simply return it to the pond to improve return currents, reducing settlement etc.
Secondly, many of the ideas muted for flow rates are based on antiquated knowledge, much higher flowrates than oft quoted can be of benefit. Additionally much depends on the overall system dynamics, whereas quoted specs are a middle of the road average scenario assumption. In this case there is a hope the filter is really suited to a 3000 gallon koi pond, as I've visited your suppliers website and had a peek, unfortunately they do not provide manufacturer details but sizes are available. On the plus side is that if such filters are purchased from a koi dealer one should be able to trust their suggested ratings.
I would expect that to contain around 750 ltrs, you could therefore be right with your 550 ish net, after media. Why I am not happy with the 3000 gallon koi pond rating is that the vortex is too small to be efficient. There is one rule in filtration which causes many problems, a filter really is only as good as it's weakest link. However with a simple 1 hour mod costing a few pounds you can double the vortex efficiency.
I would now take a look at the media side of things, in a submerged media filter it's essential to remove all but the invisible matter from the water prior to the bio stages for optimum results. Each filter should be set up to accomodate this so far as is possible, so any suggestions I make for media and location are based on that principle.
I will explain later if required how to hugely improve vortex performance, but as to media, I think you have the 3 bay unit and will continue on that assumption. Incidentally, any improvement in one area of a filter system will almost always improve the other stages.
With the vortex mod you will not require a brush bay, nor will you have to sacrifice the "vortex" action, indeed the mod will enhance it. In a 3 bay filter I would deploy flocor in bay 1, as this will remove huge amounts of fines prior to the bio stages, go for a size around the 30mm mark if possible. I have heard it said that K1 has similar capabilities, though I've always found flocor to be very efficient plus it's cheap and simple. I also prefer to seperate mechanical and bio filtration wherever possible, I see K1 as a compromise in that respect, though apparently a very good one.
In the other two bays I'd use Japmat, though if this was the only filter system I may consider using a different media in each bay, one of the lava rocks in the 2nd bay with Japmat in the final bay for example. I can provide the rationales if required. I have spent several years playing with multibays, there are numerous ways to set them up, but only a few which provide optimum results. An ORP / REDOX meter is essential to ascertain optimum filter setup and configuration, all suggestions are based on my own tests conducted over time using this method to support findings.
I think you have to assume the supplier rating is reasonably correct in this case, probably however rated at a 2 hour turnover rate, I prefer much more. In which event I would suggest a flowrate of 1500 gph would be default, but after the small mod to the vortex I would expect to run that unit at around 2200 gph with excellent results.
So, allowing for line losses an Aquamax 15000 or 16000 would do superbly, with very little to spare. Your 10,000 would then do nicely for the additional filtration subsequently. I would suggest before you spend loads of money on a trickle or shower system that you add a cheap sieve to a skimmer and leave it for a while, providing you have decent air delivery to pond and filter bio stages you may be pleasantly surprised.
Chi
Addendum:
Obviously Ted much is dependant upon your ambitions, but this is an opportunity to move the pond on and should not be missed.
My experiments over the years have I believe led me to a point very few other hobbyists have achieved. I have heard of only a handful with a daily ORP / Redox for example of 390 to 405, this was not an accident, but a result of hard work over time. The benefits to the koi of top notch water conditions is nothing short of amazing, health being my focus rather than the accompanying growth acceleration.
I concede it's difficult to do more with two returns than try for some circulation, more returns allow better manipulation, providing preferable three dimensional currents rather than a simple circulatory result.
Filters are a little like ducks, they look simple on the surface because all the action's out of site. It is possible to keep it simple, at least at face value, but the fact is it's a very scientific process, especially if you want to achieve the best possible results, regardless of the system used.
Chi
Obviously Ted much is dependant upon your ambitions, but this is an opportunity to move the pond on and should not be missed.
My experiments over the years have I believe led me to a point very few other hobbyists have achieved. I have heard of only a handful with a daily ORP / Redox for example of 390 to 405, this was not an accident, but a result of hard work over time. The benefits to the koi of top notch water conditions is nothing short of amazing, health being my focus rather than the accompanying growth acceleration.
I concede it's difficult to do more with two returns than try for some circulation, more returns allow better manipulation, providing preferable three dimensional currents rather than a simple circulatory result.
Filters are a little like ducks, they look simple on the surface because all the action's out of site. It is possible to keep it simple, at least at face value, but the fact is it's a very scientific process, especially if you want to achieve the best possible results, regardless of the system used.
Chi
filter mods
Just a quick one in response to chitas rating of turnover on multibay, I know the units 5 acre produce, unfortunatly to achive the higher flowrate through them it is essential the transfer ports are modified to allow the flow rate to be upped to that suggested however I think you will struggle to get that flow through them,
Lava rock is not a preffered media nor is flocor inho is is a pure dirt trap and requires regular maintenence to remove the deposits and sludge which can build up, jap matting and K1 is far better again only imho the descisions on which media to use ultimatly stop with yourself.
Higher flow rates through a filter dont always give benificial results and unless good settlement is incorporated in the filter system can result in cloudy water and crud and fish poo being dragged into bio chambers, for me I would stick with the lower flow rates through the filter and use a secondary pump from the skimmer to add current within your pond, as your pond is only 3000 gals a pumping rate of 1500/ 1800 gph in my book would be excellent.
Lava rock is not a preffered media nor is flocor inho is is a pure dirt trap and requires regular maintenence to remove the deposits and sludge which can build up, jap matting and K1 is far better again only imho the descisions on which media to use ultimatly stop with yourself.
Higher flow rates through a filter dont always give benificial results and unless good settlement is incorporated in the filter system can result in cloudy water and crud and fish poo being dragged into bio chambers, for me I would stick with the lower flow rates through the filter and use a secondary pump from the skimmer to add current within your pond, as your pond is only 3000 gals a pumping rate of 1500/ 1800 gph in my book would be excellent.
Under most "average" user circumstances Dave I'd probably agree with most of what you've said, but I'll allow myself a little trumpet blowing here. I consider myself far more advanced than most in the setup and deployment of filters. Were this not so eveyone in the land would have water absolutely the same as mine, with no BW, no ailments and 400 avg ORP figures, simply by taking it out of the box and following the standard advice on the label. Patently this is not happening, so all I am saying is that an open mind to new ideas is essential, or I'll always be the only one with perfect water and no one else to compare notes with!
It appears you are familiar with the filter in question Dave, I certainly am not, but there are usually numerous methods of modifying such devices. If there are specific mechanical limitations with this filter which limit potential throughput, and modification is not possible, then that's down to poor design. It really doesn't take much thought to allow a little latitude in these areas, one can usually modify such devices quite simply but I bow to your specific knowledge of the filter on that one.
As to media, specifically flocor, this media is grossly misunderstood by many, who assume it's role to be that of a bio media. It is not and I would never suggest it for the role, being as it is far better deployed in a bay preceding bio stages, as it's form causes fines to settle out naturally and efficiently, in a small space. If used in this way instead of as a cheap substitute for proper bio media, it offers superb fines entrapment, just as you said Dave. If flushed every few days to a week on the average pond it's a superb bio stage prefilter which is easy to clean, simply flush the bay and watch the fines run away to waste in seconds, no hosing down necessary! Unfortunately this media only works properly in this mode in an upward flowing bay. In my own deployment 2 cubic feet of it totally replaced a 4' x 4' x 3' settlement tank with no loss of efficiency.
Lava rock, not a preferred media? How so, as some of the planets best quality water is contained in pools filtered through lava rock, so that equates how? Unfortunately I confess the facts are not quite so simple, as whilst it's a very good media if correctly deployed, (for example in fairly quick flowing water) it can be an equally bad media if poorly deployed. (for example if submerged in slow or static flows) In that respect it would not be a preferred media in some situations. Again, I have one bay of Alfagrog (a similar material) in my multibay system and 3 more in my shower, with water parameters second to no one, and I do mean no one, so go figure.
I agree higher flow rates do not always produce better results in filters, which is why in my earlier post I specifically stated that higher flowrates can improve results in some scenarios, not all.
I have no "settlement" as such in my whole filter system Dave, and no crap in the water, which is absolutely crystal at all times. I have no settlement in my pond, not a speck, no crap other than faeces slowly moving to the filter intake, which are usually gone in the hour at most. My pond looks much as it did when installed some years ago, no build up or settlement whatsoever, and I do not vacuum. I do so little maintenance I would not expect everyone to believe me if I described it, my pond virtually self cleans, mia culpa, mia culpa, mia culpa.
I tell you this so that you may understand that I suggest only those ideas I have tried and proved, not notions or ideas from third parties or comics, nor default hand me downs unless I believe they can't be improved upon. And trust me (I'm part Jewish) if I say it can it can, because I have done it and recorded it over months or years, and my water and the koi are the living proofs.
I understand that for some it's difficult to accept change, or even to understand it, so I do not advocate change for changes sake. But we must think outside of the box if progress is to be made, and sometimes this can include using old materials in new ways, or old ways with new materials or ideas. The dynamics of a recirculating pond are a science in and of themselves, requiring specific solutions to specific problems. Examining each problem from the science perspective is the way to progress, to that end I have studied the recirculating pond environment intensly for some years.
Do the methods I now adhere to and advocate work?
My water parameters are a matter of public record, and I have also stated that this is how I have achieved them and the derived benefits thereof. There are therefore a limited number of answers to the question above, I am lying, I am not lying, come and have a peek before forming any conclusions or making assumptions. I can say with certainty that few are fortunate enough to enjoy water of such quality and koi which have benefitted commensurately.
I do not decry other methods, only try to see where they can be improved or better alternatives found. I then try to share the results with others who may benefit, I have no vested interests, I do it free of all encumbrances for the love of the hobby.
Chi
It appears you are familiar with the filter in question Dave, I certainly am not, but there are usually numerous methods of modifying such devices. If there are specific mechanical limitations with this filter which limit potential throughput, and modification is not possible, then that's down to poor design. It really doesn't take much thought to allow a little latitude in these areas, one can usually modify such devices quite simply but I bow to your specific knowledge of the filter on that one.
As to media, specifically flocor, this media is grossly misunderstood by many, who assume it's role to be that of a bio media. It is not and I would never suggest it for the role, being as it is far better deployed in a bay preceding bio stages, as it's form causes fines to settle out naturally and efficiently, in a small space. If used in this way instead of as a cheap substitute for proper bio media, it offers superb fines entrapment, just as you said Dave. If flushed every few days to a week on the average pond it's a superb bio stage prefilter which is easy to clean, simply flush the bay and watch the fines run away to waste in seconds, no hosing down necessary! Unfortunately this media only works properly in this mode in an upward flowing bay. In my own deployment 2 cubic feet of it totally replaced a 4' x 4' x 3' settlement tank with no loss of efficiency.
Lava rock, not a preferred media? How so, as some of the planets best quality water is contained in pools filtered through lava rock, so that equates how? Unfortunately I confess the facts are not quite so simple, as whilst it's a very good media if correctly deployed, (for example in fairly quick flowing water) it can be an equally bad media if poorly deployed. (for example if submerged in slow or static flows) In that respect it would not be a preferred media in some situations. Again, I have one bay of Alfagrog (a similar material) in my multibay system and 3 more in my shower, with water parameters second to no one, and I do mean no one, so go figure.
I agree higher flow rates do not always produce better results in filters, which is why in my earlier post I specifically stated that higher flowrates can improve results in some scenarios, not all.
I have no "settlement" as such in my whole filter system Dave, and no crap in the water, which is absolutely crystal at all times. I have no settlement in my pond, not a speck, no crap other than faeces slowly moving to the filter intake, which are usually gone in the hour at most. My pond looks much as it did when installed some years ago, no build up or settlement whatsoever, and I do not vacuum. I do so little maintenance I would not expect everyone to believe me if I described it, my pond virtually self cleans, mia culpa, mia culpa, mia culpa.
I tell you this so that you may understand that I suggest only those ideas I have tried and proved, not notions or ideas from third parties or comics, nor default hand me downs unless I believe they can't be improved upon. And trust me (I'm part Jewish) if I say it can it can, because I have done it and recorded it over months or years, and my water and the koi are the living proofs.
I understand that for some it's difficult to accept change, or even to understand it, so I do not advocate change for changes sake. But we must think outside of the box if progress is to be made, and sometimes this can include using old materials in new ways, or old ways with new materials or ideas. The dynamics of a recirculating pond are a science in and of themselves, requiring specific solutions to specific problems. Examining each problem from the science perspective is the way to progress, to that end I have studied the recirculating pond environment intensly for some years.
Do the methods I now adhere to and advocate work?
My water parameters are a matter of public record, and I have also stated that this is how I have achieved them and the derived benefits thereof. There are therefore a limited number of answers to the question above, I am lying, I am not lying, come and have a peek before forming any conclusions or making assumptions. I can say with certainty that few are fortunate enough to enjoy water of such quality and koi which have benefitted commensurately.
I do not decry other methods, only try to see where they can be improved or better alternatives found. I then try to share the results with others who may benefit, I have no vested interests, I do it free of all encumbrances for the love of the hobby.
Chi
media types
Chi
I am not doubting your findings at all so lets get that one out of the way to start with and am interested in your findings belive me, however in the circumstances there are several limiting factors.
The filter refereed to I have to say is not of good design the bottom outlets for waste flushing sit above the base of the filter by some 1/2" and then the pipe above it so to the centre of the discharge pipe is a fair distance this in turn allows a build up of **** in the bottom of the filter which does not go away on flushing. Therfore to prevent this buid up my preference is for an aeriated media such as K1 with the air ring in the bottom which prevents this build up of mulm. Yes the filter can be modded but it has limitations to what can be done,
I agree with your comment re flocor again however this will lead to maintence issues within this filter as when stirred and flushed the crud will sit in the bottom. Lava rock used submerged is still in IMHO a problem you say large lakes are filtered by this media but how much fish poo and weed is dragged through it as we do in our filter systems with all those bits that pass the settlement stage, used in a shower with settlement beforhand I agree will not be prone to the same problems.
I have no problem with you blowing your own trumpet but others have seen my setup and I will blow along side you,
There are other concerns also regarding maintence with the suggested materials miss a couple of weeks of regular flushing due to holidays etc and it does not take long for things to go sour and pear shaped, I have to admit to the KISS theory hence my input to this thread. Also of concern is that not all koi keepers have the same quality of water from the tap so essentialy what works for one does not always work for another, I have seen many ponds run on undergravel filteration again if installed correctly this is a good way as are the old materials of lytag etc.
ps I am Jewish to chi so we have somthing in common
I am not doubting your findings at all so lets get that one out of the way to start with and am interested in your findings belive me, however in the circumstances there are several limiting factors.
The filter refereed to I have to say is not of good design the bottom outlets for waste flushing sit above the base of the filter by some 1/2" and then the pipe above it so to the centre of the discharge pipe is a fair distance this in turn allows a build up of **** in the bottom of the filter which does not go away on flushing. Therfore to prevent this buid up my preference is for an aeriated media such as K1 with the air ring in the bottom which prevents this build up of mulm. Yes the filter can be modded but it has limitations to what can be done,
I agree with your comment re flocor again however this will lead to maintence issues within this filter as when stirred and flushed the crud will sit in the bottom. Lava rock used submerged is still in IMHO a problem you say large lakes are filtered by this media but how much fish poo and weed is dragged through it as we do in our filter systems with all those bits that pass the settlement stage, used in a shower with settlement beforhand I agree will not be prone to the same problems.
I have no problem with you blowing your own trumpet but others have seen my setup and I will blow along side you,
There are other concerns also regarding maintence with the suggested materials miss a couple of weeks of regular flushing due to holidays etc and it does not take long for things to go sour and pear shaped, I have to admit to the KISS theory hence my input to this thread. Also of concern is that not all koi keepers have the same quality of water from the tap so essentialy what works for one does not always work for another, I have seen many ponds run on undergravel filteration again if installed correctly this is a good way as are the old materials of lytag etc.
ps I am Jewish to chi so we have somthing in common
Thanks for your Info Dave and Chita. Your comments are very useful.
I must point out that the filter worked very well last year. Granted the gallonage was lower but I don'tintend to keep more fish - just give them more space. The filter was fed by a side entry pipe turned down to the pond base. Even with this crude drain with three airstones the water was clear and the pond bottom clean. My concern is that increasing the pump power too much (was an Aquamax 5500 before) that the settlement in the filter will not be as good.
Regarding media Chita, I don't think I will be changing the current set up as it works well. The vortex could be bigger, I agree, but from that point on it works well. I plan to do a vortex conversion to improve its efficiency .
Dave, I agree about the waste pipes but the first and second bay drain down together as you know. I pull out the brushes and hose underneath the K1 and flush it with water from the vortex weir and I have checked, it gets clean apart from a little silt below the drain pipe. The third bay of matting has virtually nothing in the bottom when I do pull out the cartridge, I just rinse underneath and replace it.
Again, thanks for your comments. I am still thinking about what I can do with the returns and will post details of the build as I go along.
Dave A - will be in contact for a glassing quote as soon as I can.
I must point out that the filter worked very well last year. Granted the gallonage was lower but I don'tintend to keep more fish - just give them more space. The filter was fed by a side entry pipe turned down to the pond base. Even with this crude drain with three airstones the water was clear and the pond bottom clean. My concern is that increasing the pump power too much (was an Aquamax 5500 before) that the settlement in the filter will not be as good.
Regarding media Chita, I don't think I will be changing the current set up as it works well. The vortex could be bigger, I agree, but from that point on it works well. I plan to do a vortex conversion to improve its efficiency .
Dave, I agree about the waste pipes but the first and second bay drain down together as you know. I pull out the brushes and hose underneath the K1 and flush it with water from the vortex weir and I have checked, it gets clean apart from a little silt below the drain pipe. The third bay of matting has virtually nothing in the bottom when I do pull out the cartridge, I just rinse underneath and replace it.
Again, thanks for your comments. I am still thinking about what I can do with the returns and will post details of the build as I go along.
Dave A - will be in contact for a glassing quote as soon as I can.
Fatherted
No problem I run one of andrews filters as well and have done a small mod to get better pull when flushing drains, give me a bell on 01623-400672 after 7pm any evening and I will talk it through with you also please dont think I am knocking Andrews filters in the main they work well and he is a good guy and helps people
when your ready for glassing just let me know meanwhile keep posting as this thread is developing well
when your ready for glassing just let me know meanwhile keep posting as this thread is developing well
Apologies if I ran off a little, but trying to convey certain ideas can get very frustrating at times. When one is preaching unorthodox or unusual ideas or practices it's essential to ensure that listeners grasp one simple fact first. I am not expounding a theory, but passing on the results of hardwork, with all the mistakes and no go's omitted. It frequently happens that a post will call a principle into doubt, and at times like these I do tend to overreact.
I understand probably more than 99.9% of the planet the potential problems imposed by such filter designs Dave. For example, those awful multibays with side mounted flushing valve's, still using mine Dave, and I should say nowhere near so fine an example as the one in use by Ted!
I dragged a similar design kicking and screaming from 2 decades ago into this decade when I adapted this pond from goldfish to koi several years ago. I still use it in the system, and I spend at least 4 months a year in Europe, the kids open the valves weekly and that's it, but as I said, that's in my "system".
Fortunately it's not just the equipment which controls the result, but also the method of deployment. Of course the way one looks at filtration is the single most important factor, and I believe this is where many fall down. One has to view filtration as an engineered system, consider the end requirements, identify and then seperate every element necessary to achieve that result, then design the solution.
In that concept IMHO the poor multibay is being pressed into war against it's will in certain areas. To perform as required on most ponds the multibay would have to be considerably larger physically than most keepers want it to be, or have a huge settlement chamber in the system preceding it.
So I sought a solution which suited my requirements, this meant moving all possible mechanical filtration away from the multibay. IMHO multibays are not best suited to settlement needs, they are however superb bio convertors if correctly deployed.
Which means passing mechanically clean water through them, the only mechanical filtration taking place deliberately in mine is the fines removal by the flocor preceding the bio media. All other debris is removed prior, by the vortex, by the sand filter and the cartridge filter, though a seive may well be replacing the latter very soon.
It's essential in my system to keep the water moving and have good inpond currents, keeping particles suspended until they are extracted by one or other of the filters as quickly as possible.
My poorly designed multibay does not collect sediment in the bottom, despite the 1" or so to centre of the outlets. Or rather the small amounts which do remain take months to amount to an egg cup full and pose no threat, of course in a standard system this could present a hazard. In my system very little particulate matter reaches that far, so not an issue. I also found that oversized valves and drain pipework adds to the pull when flushing such filters, a must IMHO. Mine step up immediately from the 1.5" to 2", which then drop vertically into a 3" waste manifold.
My method of filter deployment and system design obviates many of the traditional problem areas. It took me all of a few weeks some years ago to recognise that sediment was the single most threatening issue in an enclosed pond. My answer was simple, don't allow it to happen, and in my pond it doesn't.
It's a simple matter really, think of all the filters you've ever heard of, which one offers the necessary features. Well, I wanted to remove large amounts of debris and particulate matter from the water, quickly and efficiently, but it should be easy to remove from whatever did that job during cleaning. After several failed trials I found a way of using a sand filter without mechanical modification to do that superbly, and with additional benefits, winner.
I then realised that floating debris was becoming sodden and sinking, adding to the mess both physically and toxically, so this needed removing asp. A skimmer feeding the cartridge filter was added, with a 2250 gph pump, small pumps and skimmers are a waste IMHO. This removes surface debris very quickly, before it sinks and adds to the system load, a pre-emptive strike really. I then modded my vortex to improve efficiency, without losing the vortex action. The net result on the filter side being a 4 bay multibay doing what it does best, bio conversion.
In my opinion the concept of the multibay has been bastardised for profit, my perceived method of use is I believe closer to the original concept. A bio convertor with the potential to remove most of any remaining suspended particles prior to the bio media bays. Incidental fine tuning of the water as opposed to planned mechanical filtration you might say.
The final tuning was not the filters as much as the returns, as this is one of the most difficult areas to get perfect. It is also the most difficult to explain to other keepers, so many variables in a fluid dynamic selection box.
To get that part right it's essential the other principles and the overall aims are fully understood, which does lead me to bang on a bit!
OH, and finally, if you can achieve the goals I set myself, and I have, the water becomes almost self cleaning to a degree, as bad bacteria do not like clean water. Even sediment deposits pose less threat, as those sediments are to a degree purified by the high ORP / REDOX of the water.
If one can grasp the basic principles they can be applied to almost any old filters and flotsam you have lying around. Due to ingnorance in the area, even expensive sand filters are available used for peanuts, because few understand how to best deploy them for the job in hand.
As I said earlier, it's difficult to specifically discuss returns, they are specific to individual ponds to get the optimum. But understanding the concept should allow most to derive reasonable results in that area. Three dimensional currents are best, best for the koi and best for the job in all other areas. I prefer for example to have returns aimed at the bottom in the corners, a slight angle allows the formation and manipulation of multidirectional flows. That's worth another topic on it's own I think!
Chi
I understand probably more than 99.9% of the planet the potential problems imposed by such filter designs Dave. For example, those awful multibays with side mounted flushing valve's, still using mine Dave, and I should say nowhere near so fine an example as the one in use by Ted!
I dragged a similar design kicking and screaming from 2 decades ago into this decade when I adapted this pond from goldfish to koi several years ago. I still use it in the system, and I spend at least 4 months a year in Europe, the kids open the valves weekly and that's it, but as I said, that's in my "system".
Fortunately it's not just the equipment which controls the result, but also the method of deployment. Of course the way one looks at filtration is the single most important factor, and I believe this is where many fall down. One has to view filtration as an engineered system, consider the end requirements, identify and then seperate every element necessary to achieve that result, then design the solution.
In that concept IMHO the poor multibay is being pressed into war against it's will in certain areas. To perform as required on most ponds the multibay would have to be considerably larger physically than most keepers want it to be, or have a huge settlement chamber in the system preceding it.
So I sought a solution which suited my requirements, this meant moving all possible mechanical filtration away from the multibay. IMHO multibays are not best suited to settlement needs, they are however superb bio convertors if correctly deployed.
Which means passing mechanically clean water through them, the only mechanical filtration taking place deliberately in mine is the fines removal by the flocor preceding the bio media. All other debris is removed prior, by the vortex, by the sand filter and the cartridge filter, though a seive may well be replacing the latter very soon.
It's essential in my system to keep the water moving and have good inpond currents, keeping particles suspended until they are extracted by one or other of the filters as quickly as possible.
My poorly designed multibay does not collect sediment in the bottom, despite the 1" or so to centre of the outlets. Or rather the small amounts which do remain take months to amount to an egg cup full and pose no threat, of course in a standard system this could present a hazard. In my system very little particulate matter reaches that far, so not an issue. I also found that oversized valves and drain pipework adds to the pull when flushing such filters, a must IMHO. Mine step up immediately from the 1.5" to 2", which then drop vertically into a 3" waste manifold.
My method of filter deployment and system design obviates many of the traditional problem areas. It took me all of a few weeks some years ago to recognise that sediment was the single most threatening issue in an enclosed pond. My answer was simple, don't allow it to happen, and in my pond it doesn't.
It's a simple matter really, think of all the filters you've ever heard of, which one offers the necessary features. Well, I wanted to remove large amounts of debris and particulate matter from the water, quickly and efficiently, but it should be easy to remove from whatever did that job during cleaning. After several failed trials I found a way of using a sand filter without mechanical modification to do that superbly, and with additional benefits, winner.
I then realised that floating debris was becoming sodden and sinking, adding to the mess both physically and toxically, so this needed removing asp. A skimmer feeding the cartridge filter was added, with a 2250 gph pump, small pumps and skimmers are a waste IMHO. This removes surface debris very quickly, before it sinks and adds to the system load, a pre-emptive strike really. I then modded my vortex to improve efficiency, without losing the vortex action. The net result on the filter side being a 4 bay multibay doing what it does best, bio conversion.
In my opinion the concept of the multibay has been bastardised for profit, my perceived method of use is I believe closer to the original concept. A bio convertor with the potential to remove most of any remaining suspended particles prior to the bio media bays. Incidental fine tuning of the water as opposed to planned mechanical filtration you might say.
The final tuning was not the filters as much as the returns, as this is one of the most difficult areas to get perfect. It is also the most difficult to explain to other keepers, so many variables in a fluid dynamic selection box.
To get that part right it's essential the other principles and the overall aims are fully understood, which does lead me to bang on a bit!
OH, and finally, if you can achieve the goals I set myself, and I have, the water becomes almost self cleaning to a degree, as bad bacteria do not like clean water. Even sediment deposits pose less threat, as those sediments are to a degree purified by the high ORP / REDOX of the water.
If one can grasp the basic principles they can be applied to almost any old filters and flotsam you have lying around. Due to ingnorance in the area, even expensive sand filters are available used for peanuts, because few understand how to best deploy them for the job in hand.
As I said earlier, it's difficult to specifically discuss returns, they are specific to individual ponds to get the optimum. But understanding the concept should allow most to derive reasonable results in that area. Three dimensional currents are best, best for the koi and best for the job in all other areas. I prefer for example to have returns aimed at the bottom in the corners, a slight angle allows the formation and manipulation of multidirectional flows. That's worth another topic on it's own I think!
Chi
good post
Good post Chi
I have to agree with almost everthing you say but most importantly is the removal of waste before bio chambers, unfortunatly most vortexs sold are not big enough or have enough distance between inlet and out to be anywhere half decent at allowing settlement to happen.
As for returns well I think a very subject for another thread as an instance all my returns are at different levels and angles to get IMHO the best circulation for my particular shape and size of pond as yourself I have no crud hanging around in my pond it is switfly dispatched.
Along with the air dome on one bottom drain only the other is standard I get good 3 dimensional current over all areas at differing speeds which gives ares of shal we say slacker water which allows solids to settle out and be switfly dispacted via bottom drain to settlement.
I have to agree with almost everthing you say but most importantly is the removal of waste before bio chambers, unfortunatly most vortexs sold are not big enough or have enough distance between inlet and out to be anywhere half decent at allowing settlement to happen.
As for returns well I think a very subject for another thread as an instance all my returns are at different levels and angles to get IMHO the best circulation for my particular shape and size of pond as yourself I have no crud hanging around in my pond it is switfly dispatched.
Along with the air dome on one bottom drain only the other is standard I get good 3 dimensional current over all areas at differing speeds which gives ares of shal we say slacker water which allows solids to settle out and be switfly dispacted via bottom drain to settlement.
It would seem that in many things we are on the same plane Dave, unfortunately the incredibly high number of options and variations on a theme make it virtually impossible for most keepers to try everything. I consider myself fortunate in that I've had the time and resources over the years to try the vast majority of options. I've spent years trying different media in differing situations for example, and I can tell you I've had a few surprises, good and bad.
I see filtration in a similar way to how I see the probable invention of the wheel, not as straight forward as one might assume. The inventor of the wheel probably just started out thinking that the square rock he wanted for a garden seat would have moved easier had it not had corners. If one can step sideways and think obtusely thus, wonders can be achieved with filtration.
Chi
I see filtration in a similar way to how I see the probable invention of the wheel, not as straight forward as one might assume. The inventor of the wheel probably just started out thinking that the square rock he wanted for a garden seat would have moved easier had it not had corners. If one can step sideways and think obtusely thus, wonders can be achieved with filtration.
Chi
Many thanks Chi and Dave. You have spent a lot of time passing on your experience and I am grateful for it. There are many ways of solving these problems and I am soaking up the opinions given. If I make the wrong choice then I can only blame myself!
Regarding vortex's, I must point out that although bigger would be much better, a 600 dia one does a pretty good job of removing a lot of solids. This is a fact I can testify to and I have a friend with the filter size smaller than mine and he is also amazed at how much it extracts. Don't misinterpret this, I am not saying they are perfect or even that they 'work', but they shouldn't be just written off as useless.
I am interested in your waste upgrade Dave and will give you a call when I pull out the filter and get some time off the dig itself. I had noted that there was a possibility of waste build up in the bottom of the channels.
We really must get back to returns as this is what is keeping me awake at night. I have been thinking about it a bit more and will modify my sketch for posting.
Regarding vortex's, I must point out that although bigger would be much better, a 600 dia one does a pretty good job of removing a lot of solids. This is a fact I can testify to and I have a friend with the filter size smaller than mine and he is also amazed at how much it extracts. Don't misinterpret this, I am not saying they are perfect or even that they 'work', but they shouldn't be just written off as useless.
I am interested in your waste upgrade Dave and will give you a call when I pull out the filter and get some time off the dig itself. I had noted that there was a possibility of waste build up in the bottom of the channels.
We really must get back to returns as this is what is keeping me awake at night. I have been thinking about it a bit more and will modify my sketch for posting.
The pond shape is changing a little as we dig but I haven't been able to put a tape to it yet but it will be similar to the original plan.
I have put a return at each corner firing down the long side of the pond with the skimmer in an 'empty' corner. Does this look OK?
[img]http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a280/vr6t ... ayout5.jpg[/img]
I have put a return at each corner firing down the long side of the pond with the skimmer in an 'empty' corner. Does this look OK?
[img]http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a280/vr6t ... ayout5.jpg[/img]
