# DIY 6 gallon bucket canister filter.



## Jgray152

Just for you Jones! 

*The DIY section seemed dead so I had to bring it back to life some how*

BTW, the Fx5 is running great, I have not finished the cover. I will need to buy some weldon 10 probubly and when I do that I will use it on both this filter and the fx5.

So I decided on a 6 gallon bucket for canister filter. Im going to use a Gamma Seal lid and the plumbing is as follows. Slight changes have been made whic are not pictured and that is just that the intake and output are on the same side of the bucket. Structual reinforment will be done with acrylic on the inside of the bucket. I don't want this collapsing in on its self under negitive pressures. 

The bucket and lid should be here friday..aka, tomarrow

here is a pic from USPlastics.com









This is a sketch of what the filter setup "could" look like. Change probubly will be made as I go along. The water will swirl inside the bucket.









I will use an external pump that will pump about 1000-1200 GPH. The pump will be located on the output side of the canister filter. The filter will purge itself without the pump but may not purge 100%. Should purge enough to prime the pump. With the pump on, the small purge tube you see should allow air to be evacuated from the top surface and replaced with the water coming in from the intake.

So I bought some stuff to start the build. The bucket that is in the pictures below is NOT the bucket I will be using. Its only for a temp solution to see if the bulkhead fittings will work. 

Here are the bulkheads. I had to use a 1 1/4 inch intake so the ID of the barbed fitting would be atleast 1" instead of 3/4" if I had went with a 1" barbed.

I may just copy the output style for use as an intake instead of what I have.




































I ordered the bucket and the gamma seal lid and I will hook this up to my Fx5 just so I can have some negitive and positive pressures running through it to test it out.

Moving the fittings back and forth doesn't cause them to leak at all. This is something I was worried about. So Moving hoses around while they are hooked to the filter won't cause the filter to leak. The bucket just flexs a bit.

The 90* barbed fitting is not pointing at the angle I would like it to be. A 45* would work better but I couldnt find any. I Will keep my eyes open or maybe PVCfittings.com has something that is female threaded on one side and slip fitting on the other at a 45* angle.

I filled the bucket with water and it holds great.

Here is a picture of the purge tube


----------



## wifishman

very nice, im very interested in seeing how this works! how big of a tank will this be hooked to, how many feet between pump and tank... im just currious as to how much turnover you will have... is this for a freshwater or saltwater application?


----------



## Jgray152

Freshwater 180 gallon tank. There will be about 6 cycles per hour in the tank.

The velocity through the filter will be about .5" per second. This should hold upto 18 Liters of bio media. At 10" deep, there will be about 20 seconds of contact time. Maybe a little less between the water and bio media.

About 4' of head on the pump.


----------



## Jgray152

Well the bucket and the lid came in today.

I did some work on the bucket. The purge tube you see I may redo. I think its a little short.


----------



## jones57742

Jgray152 said:


> The velocity through the filter will be about .5" per second. ... there will be about 20 seconds of contact time.


Jg:

The velocity and contact period values which I published in your previous thread were just my estimates based upon wastewater treatment plant design as modified by my experience and many experiments in the home/office aquarium world.

The above quote implies to me that you have found a definitive source for these values???

TR


----------



## Jgray152

Nope, but 15-20 seconds seems like an "OK" contact time considering the volume of water that will be flowing through.

The bucket is indeed much more durable than I was expecting it to be. Most buckets I have delt with are flimsy but this one is very rigid. I don't see any reason for bracing but I may anyways.


----------



## Jgray152

I calculated the bio capacity wrong. I first said it was 18L but thats not right. It would only be around 14L. 

I decided do something a little different. Instead of using coarse and slightly coarse filter foam/fiber pads to remove large waste, why not use filter socks or even 800 micron media bags on the inlet? This way I can eliminate 3" off the mechanical filtration and put that 3" into the bio filter compartment. Now instead of 10" high it will be 13" high compartment. I figured for a 10.75" diameter since the bucket is about 10" on the bottom and almost 12 at the top. That will give me just over 19L of bio capacity. I like that number better than 14L. After all, this is suppose to be a "big" filter.

The filter media bag I will use will be 4" diameter by 12" long. That will give me about 150 sq inch surface area compaired to the 108 sq inch surface area of filter pads laying flat. I could also go with a 7"x14" bag which would give me about 538sq in area.

I would have to figure out how to secure it to the inlet and I think I will use those spring loaded round clamps. I have to find them online or in the auto store. You can unclip them with your fingers.


----------



## Jgray152

here is a picture of what it could look like.










this is the clamp I was going to use


----------



## Jgray152

Im not going to use the wire clamp pictured above, I found some and you need plyers to remove it because its so stiff. I think a barbed fitting with a good thick rubber band may do the trick.

I did some more quick work to it. I decided to continue with the 1.25" barbed fitting for the filter bag and just use a 1.25" -> 1" bushing to reduce to a 1" pipe on the outside of the bucket.










Using a bushing will cause a large chamber to form within the barbed fitting, counduit fitting and bushing which could cause turbulance in flow. So to remedy this I just cut a small piece of 1" pipe to fit inside this assembly and it worked and fit perfect. The fit is a tad looser than normal but some glue or silicone at both ends of the pipe will keep it secure. Pictured Below;










I also don't think I will need to upper seporation tray. I will do without for now and see how it works.


----------



## jones57742

Jg:

Please keep up your play by play!

I would have commented but I have not picked up on anything adverse with respect to your thinking.

TR


----------



## Jgray152

Thanks jones 

Imliking this filter a lot better than the fx5 already. Maybe its because I have to build it from scratch.

I had this in my head for months and on paper for another month or two. I have gone through about 5-6 different designs till I came up with this one.

If you have any idea, by all means let me know. Im very open to them


----------



## jones57742

Jgray152 said:


> If you have any idea, by all means let me know. Im very open to them


and I thought that you were an intelligent feller!! :chair: :chair: :chair:


----------



## Jgray152

haha. NEW ideas I could incorperate into the filter. 

Never would I ever want you to change MY design! hehehe


----------



## k-dawg-

jones57742 said:


> Jg:
> 
> Please keep up your play by play!
> 
> I would have commented but I have not picked up on anything adverse with respect to your thinking.
> 
> TR


Yea still following as well!


----------



## Jgray152

Hello Fellas,

This project along with finishing my Fx5 was abruptly haulted after loosing my job. Although I have now started up my own landscaping company and im slowly bouncing back.

I have two good sied jobs this week lined up, so after them I may be able to finish this project.

BTW, the image that tells you the low velocity low pressure and high velocity high pressure, is backwards. Its supposed to be low velocity high pressure and high velocity low pressure.


----------



## justintrask

Just looking for an update!


----------



## Jgray152

No major update as of yet. I am struggling really bad financially in this US ecconomy so both this and the Fx5 project has been put on hold. 

Next year I hope to be a good year for my new business I started as I have a few potential clients lining up already so I may be able to finish these next year. If I get money in this winter I may finish them up but untill then, the build has been frozen.


----------



## Jgray152

Here is a picture though from maybe a month ago. Not much to see here but its all I got.


----------



## justintrask

look forward to hearing more  Defiantely something I am looking into for my 100G

What is the approx. gph rating?


----------



## Jgray152

Thats what will be so nice about this canister. You can add any type of pump you want. I think I have decided to go with an internal pump with a sealed cord grommet to allow the cord to be fed through the canister without any leaks.

This filter was originally for my 180 Gal but due to my financial crisis I had to sell my 180G so I now only have my 55 Gal and 29 Gal. 

My original idea was to have a Rio Hyper Flow pump which would put out around 1400 GPH. Now I may only have the pump run about 400-500 GPH on my 55. This will be way over kill for filtration volume but atleast the flow will be ok. 

I do not know what the maximum flow rate this will be able to handle but I think it could handle up to 2000 GPH but I can't be sure since I have not tested it.


----------



## jones57742

OMG it *lives*!



Jgray152 said:


> Next year I hope to be a good year for my new business I started


Kidding aside you have my best here but welcome to the world of 12 to 14 hours a day seven days a week for what seems like will go on forever.

TR


----------



## Jgray152

Hi Jones! Nice talking to you again!

I love working, especially doing work for my company. I like working a lot of hours because what I do, I can make profits over $3000-10,000 within 10-30 hours worth of work.  So I will be pushing my company hard into the game.


----------



## Jgray152

If this filter was succesful and some wanted it. How much would you pay for this if I were to build them?

Let say these are the specs,

*Mechanical Specs. * 
400-800 Micron Filter Bag
50 & 100 micron filter pads
*Biological Specs,*
Capacity: 19 Liters
Media Type: Bio Bale
*Filter Flow Rate*
1500 GPH w/ Internal Pump

All Fittings, tubing, outputs and intake included.

I have no idea if this filter will REALLY work but it does seem promising. I believe filter will cost over $200. Thats due to the pump and materials cost.


----------



## justintrask

Would you be able to make a version where we could put in our own pumps to meet our own needs? I think that would make it even more versatile.

Looking for someone who may be willing to use it as a trial?


----------



## jones57742

Jgray152 said:


> If this filter was succesful and some wanted it. How much would you pay for this if I were to build them?


Jg:

I do not want to throw cold water on you here but you are really barking up the wrong tree here.

You are experimenting for enjoyment (as am I) and thinking commercial will significantly diminish the joy.

Your time in fabrication will yield a product which will no where come close to the price point*.

TR

*I really do not mean to rain on your parade but a a plastic tub full of pot scrubbers and a submersible pump will work for what you are experimenting with.

Having said that please continue experimenting as "who knows what" you will come up with that might benefit all of us.


----------



## justintrask

jones57742 said:


> Jg:
> 
> I do not want to throw cold water on you here but you are really barking up the wrong tree here.
> 
> You are experimenting for enjoyment (as am I) and thinking commercial will significantly diminish the joy.
> 
> Your time in fabrication will yield a product which will no where come close to the price point*.
> 
> TR
> 
> *I really do not mean to rain on your parade but a a plastic tub full of pot scrubbers and a submersible pump will work for what you are experimenting with.
> 
> Having said that please continue experimenting as "who knows what" you will come up with that might benefit all of us.


Do you ever think that sometimes you come off as really rude to people? I'm done.


----------



## Jgray152

> Would you be able to make a version where we could put in our own pumps to meet our own needs? I think that would make it even more versatile.
> 
> Looking for someone who may be willing to use it as a trial?


I could. That would drop the price down a lot. Maybe just over $130 now? I would have to add up all the materials and see how long it woudl take me to make this from point one.

The problem I see with internal pumps with this design, is that you would have to cut the plug end off the cord to feed the cord through the sealed cord grommet. Unless I or you could remove the cord from the pump but this would probubly require soldering the cord loose.

So for a semi DIYer you could hook this up to any external pump. That would just yeild you another little more bio filtration but nothing to brag about.



> You are experimenting for enjoyment (as am I) and thinking commercial will significantly diminish the joy.


Not with me. Maybe with you. I like building things and coming up with new ideas. If I can come up with even one idea that someone would like to pay for, that would make my enjoyment fullfilled.



> Your time in fabrication will yield a product which will no where come close to the price point*.


Price reflects on the performance and quality of the filter and its design. So IF I happen to get this to work perfectly like I did with the Fx5 first time around, I will research ideas to make quality go up. (obvisouly quality doesn't have to be at its highet point for smoething of mine) 



> I really do not mean to rain on your parade but a a plastic tub full of pot scrubbers and a submersible pump will work for what you are experimenting with.


For bio filtration, yes. Where is the mechanical filtration in this tub you describe?

Micron Mechanical filtration in most canister filters will last a week if that. This should last several weeks. The pad in my Fx5 lasted a few weeks and this will have a larger surface area.

A lot of people step away from micron pads due to the increased maintenance.

* This canister will need no overflow.
* All water is contained. 
* Lot less noise
* Water will be forced by negitive pressure to go through micron pads rather then gravity fed so you could go a bit longer on maintenance.
* Takes up less space then your usual WD
* Holds more media than your usual Canister


Just some to compair this to your tub filled with pot scrubbers.


----------



## Jgray152

I half expected some sort of reply to keep me occupied


----------



## jamesandmanda

would canisters work if they were square ? would fit in cupboards better


----------



## justintrask

Hmm... like a 5G square bucket. I have a couple of those, and you bring up a good point


----------



## jamesandmanda

would fit better. and would have better size to surface area ratio. seems kinda stupid to make them cylindrical


----------



## justintrask

Well cylindrical makes the flow more even I'm assuming


----------



## jamesandmanda

may be why, or could be pressure ?


----------



## jamesandmanda

ha ha. me and my brilliant ideas. Already loads of square ones available


----------



## Jgray152

> would fit better. and would have better size to surface area ratio.


Not really. A round 6 gallon bucket can have the same area as a square one. If a square bucket had more area, it would have to be more than 6 gallons or it would have to be shorter but wider.



> seems kinda stupid to make them cylindrical


Why? A sqaure or round filter will work either way. Just depends on how you design it.

I used a round one because I can get the flow to spiral down. I can also buy a lid that easily screws on and seals. 

I havn't looked but I havn't seen any lids that can screw on or off of a sqaure container?


----------



## jones57742

jamesandmanda said:


> would fit better. and would have better size to surface area ratio. seems kinda stupid to make them cylindrical


ja:

Assume a 2'x2'x1' high geometry.

The area of this geometry is 8 square feet and the volume of this geometry is 4 cubic feet.

The volume of a cylinder which has an area of 8 square feet is 5.09 cubic feet.

Try any geometrical shape which you desire and you will find that a circle (2D) and a cylinder (3D) are the most efficient geometrical shapes.

This can be proved via Jacobi minimization but unless you insist I will not demonstrate.

BTW: Two other classical examples of this concept, but more difficult for me to comprehend, are a circle inscribing an equilateral triangle and and a circle circumscribing a hexagon.




justintrask said:


> Well cylindrical makes the flow more even I'm assuming





jamesandmanda said:


> may be why, or could be pressure ?


Correct on both counts.

Envision a high velocity flow at the center of large square tube and the "eddies" which would be present in the corners of the tube.

Obviously a pressure gradient will exist between the corners of the tube and midpoint of the walls which is the location of the maximum pressure (kinetic energy of the water) in the tube.

TR


----------



## emc7

The fluvals are squarish, so are most sumps, so its not insumountable. But I like the symmetry of round filters, it makes the math easier. How about hexagon shapes? then you could pack a bunch of them under the tank. 

As for commercialization, most of the "mass market" petsupply companies have consolidated into huge conglomerates with lots of debt, so don't try to sell them anything. Because of this, I don't see a lot of innovation (except in little boxes for golfdfish). This should leave some space for newcomers.

There is a high-end niche, particularly in salt water, where the best of the best or custom hand-made products can name their own price. Its just not a very large niche.

And internet marketing has made it much cheaper to bring a new product to market than ever before.


----------



## jamesandmanda

surely in terms of cupboard space. square would be more efficient. If you assume the outside area in the picture could not be used due to the shape. (sorry really bad explanation)

P.S.

This really doesn't matter and canisters work fine just the way they are. Just felt like investigating IF.

also

can you buy all in one pre built sumps ?


----------



## emc7

Jones is right about the "pressure gradiant", the further from the intake/outake, the less the flow. Square uses the space under the cabinent more efficiently, but the space in the filter less efficiently. You don't want to have to change media because the center is shot, while the edges are unused. There are ways to use the corners, but it complictes design.


----------



## jamesandmanda

in which case i shal stop thinking about it and leave filter designers who know alot more about physics than me to think about it


----------



## jones57742

jamesandmanda said:


> in which case i shal stop thinking


ja:

Please do not!

You cannot believe how much I have learned from the Jg's empirical observations in this thread.

TR


----------



## emc7

I find this thread interesting. I don't have the patience for the endless experimenting you need to do to optimize this empiriacally. It would be cool to do with modern CAD and computerized flow modeling. The basic canister filter hasn't changed much since the eheim classic, it must be possible to make them more efficient, easier to prime & clean, and quieter too.

Thank you for sharing and I wish you every sucess with this.


----------



## jones57742

emc7 said:


> It would be cool to do with modern CAD and computerized flow modeling.


em:

1st thing that came to my mind was the analogy of 10% of modeling global weather.

TR


----------



## Jgray152

> surely in terms of cupboard space. square would be more efficient. If you assume the outside area in the picture could not be used due to the shape. (sorry really bad explanation)
> 
> P.S.
> 
> This really doesn't matter and canisters work fine just the way they are. Just felt like investigating IF.
> 
> also
> 
> can you buy all in one pre built sumps ?


I knew what you were getting at. I do agree that a sqaure canister will be able to "fit" in a corner better but the flow which is the most important will not be as good as a round canister. 

My setup will have the output tube on the bottom edge of the canister, this could allow the flow to spiral down. The intake though may through the whole flow off since its won't be flowing in a circle. 



> in which case i shal stop thinking about it and leave filter designers who know alot more about physics than me to think about it


I learned by asking and posting what you have. Except I didn't learn about fluid flow from the aquarium hobby, I started to learn it when I was designing intake systems for Mazda Rx7s and asking questions online.


----------



## jamesandmanda

heres an interesting idea ive just seen on the net. Its designed to improve flow by creating a vortex.

But surely the chorine i the tap water would kill the natural bacteria off ?


----------



## jones57742

ja:

Thanks for continuing "to think" and I appreciate your research although several elements of this schematic and associated flow process' just flat do not make sense to me.

Jg has spent a ton of time and quite a bit of $ in this experiment in order to achieve a goal which could be easily achieved with a RubberMaid tub, some pot scrubbers and some quilt batting.

I have spent a ton of time attempting to help him with my thinking as he is on the "bleeding edge" of the technology and who knows what he will come up with which can help all of us.

TR


----------



## Jgray152

> Thanks for continuing "to think" and I appreciate your research although several elements of this schematic and associated flow process' just flat do not make sense to me.


I agree. The flow just doesn't make sence. Also, this vortex chamber, I don't see a vortex. With that system, some how you need to access the media and it look like you access it through the top.

The flow path in that drawing is showing me that the bio media would be on top of the pads. If they were below the pads, they would be filtering out debris before the pads would.



> Jg has spent a ton of time and quite a bit of $ in this experiment in order to achieve a goal which could be easily achieved with a RubberMaid tub, some pot scrubbers and some quilt batting.


A ton of time is true. I have not spent a whole lot of money though. Unless you coun't labor costs 

A W/D filter will always be easier to build and can function better but W/Ds also have their draw backs as do canisters too. I personally like canister filters which is why I am going the route I have been going. Mainly space is noise is a concern.


----------



## jones57742

Jgray152 said:


> Mainly space is noise is a concern.


Jg:

Space: Yes and approximately 2 to 4 times as that required by a wet/dry but then again to wet/dry's can be and are rectangular due their low flow rates.

As I have previously indicated I have limited experience with a cannister filter but

IMHO the minimum average flow should yield an 8X turnover (and this is assertion is based on actual flow and not manufacturers' rated flow) whereas 
IMHO the minimum average flow of a wet/dry should be 2X and the maximum 4X.


Noise: No.

I have got this one "figured out*" in spite of what the Internet Parrots post.

*this is with a prefab which came with the tank and not one with which I could "start from scratch".

TR


----------



## Jgray152

> Jg:
> 
> Space: Yes and approximately 2 to 4 times as that required by a wet/dry but then again to wet/dry's can be and are rectangular due their low flow rates.


That is the nice thing is that they are rectangular and can fit in corners better. You can customize a bit better as well a w/d too I suppose.



> *IMHO the minimum average flow *should yield an 8X turnover (and this is assertion is based on actual flow and not manufacturers' rated flow) whereas
> *IMHO the minimum average flow *of a wet/dry should be 2X and the maximum 4X.


Im kinda confused here. Are you trying to say that a canister should have minimum of atleast a 8x turnover where is a w/d should be a min of 2x turn over?



> Noise: No.


I guess if you build them a certain way. The videos I have seen online are a bit noisy to me.


----------



## jones57742

Jgray152 said:


> Im kinda confused here. Are you trying to say that a canister should have minimum of atleast a 8x turnover where is a w/d should be a min of 2x turn over?


General rule of thumb but yes.

Envision the quantity of mechanical and biological filtration media which can be placed in a w/d versus a cannister.

The contact time with the biological filtration media is obviously critical. Four times more media (for example) yields 25% of the required flow.




Jgray152 said:


> I guess if you build them a certain way. The videos I have seen online are a bit noisy to me.


Ah ha! Ah ha!

TR


----------



## Jgray152

> General rule of thumb but yes.
> 
> Envision the quantity of mechanical and biological filtration media which can be placed in a w/d versus a cannister.
> 
> The contact time with the biological filtration media is obviously critical. Four times more media (for example) yields 25% of the required flow.


Well it would all depend on the size of the WD. I don't know how many Liters of bio media could fit in a 10gallon if its converted to a W/D (never built one before) but I think your "rules of thumb" might be a bit off. 

I do understand the more bio media the less flow (atleast from what I have heard) you would need but the problem with this is this will reduce your intake. If you going to build a large filter with lots of media, boost up the volumn of flow as long as you keep the contact time in mind. I forgetr the actual dimentions of the bucket but from what I remember, at 1200 GPH there will be 15 seconds of contact time between the water and the bio media. I think that would be enough.... since most canisters are much lower and do a good job at removing ammonia and nitrite. I "think" the Fluval Fx5 has about 8-10 seconds of contact time IF you have all three baskets filled with bio media. 

19L of bio media is A LOT! More than you would need for most setups. The 19L of bio media I used in my canister I could easily fill about 60% of a built 10 gallon W/D. A 10 gallon W/D is about 37 liters. Built with mechanical filtration in mind it will hold less than that so my 19L of media would probubly be around the same amount that would fit in that w/d.

I know w/ds can be built much larger and they can dworf my canister but I feel that w/ds are built, "to big" for the tank sometimes. 

My canister should be able to handle a 240 gallon at 5 cycles per hour easily (1200 GPH)

Ok so I can say all day long that you can put in larger pumps and it will be find. Problem is that, I REALLY don't know how well this bucket will be under negitive pressures. Especially when the filter media starts to clog up. Could this bucket collaps on its self? Yes it could if I reach that limit. At that point, I can line the inside of the bucket with acrylic to aid in support.


----------



## jones57742

Jgray152 said:


> I know w/ds can be built much larger and they can dworf my canister but I feel that w/ds are
> 
> built, "to big" for the tank sometimes.


Jg

and who cares as the marginal fabrication costs are insignificant.

(Also please note that pot scrubbers are cheap, micron media is washable in clorox, the capatilized cost of sintered glass, ceramic cylinders, etc is negligible, etc.)


With respect to your intermediate comments they are pretty much all correct and I am in agreement with in my brain and the cognitive dissonance which we are experiencing is simply, IMHO, a matter of philosophies.

In West Texas ******* thinking if 2 is the recommended minimum then 4 will work just fine but 8 is what you really want to have.

In your analysis you did not include the volume of the evacuation chamber of the sump but having said that the volume of a wet/dry sump should be a minimum of 30% of the volume of the tank.

I am unfortunately having to live with a sump which is a prefabricated portion of my tank and is only approximately 25% of the tank volume (I was not smart enough at the time to know better) but I have "figured out" that I can use the tank weir overflow sump volume to implement biological as well as mechanical filtration also (so I am at like 35% to 40%).




Jgray152 said:


> Problem is that, I REALLY don't know how well this bucket will be under negitive pressures.
> 
> Especially when the filter media starts to clog up. Could this bucket collaps on its self?


Jg:

Not unless you have changed the fundamentals of your design without posting.

*One*
The reason that you believed that you were having more luck than me with micron media was due to the bypass flow whereas I have none.

*Two*
One of your schematics indicated that a bypass flow path existed.

Unless I am really missing something here the "negative pressures" cannot exist in this configuration.


Jg:

Please continue with you experimenting.

I am not being argumentative but only informative here.

No telling what will come out of your experiment ie.

As you are aware cannister pumps are low head but high flow whereas wet/dry external pumps are typically high head and fairly high flow.

What happens if we "hook up" one of your concepts, which is easily removable and maintainable, to the discharge side of of a wet/dry pump except that your concept has been modified such that fine sand is in a lower 6" diameter chamber which expands instantaneously into an 8" or 10" diameter chamber which is filled with sintered glass?

The maintenance would go from weekly or monthly to easily biannually!

TR


----------



## Jgray152

> Jg:
> 
> Not unless you have changed the fundamentals of your design without posting.
> 
> One
> The reason that you believed that you were having more luck than me with micron media was due to the bypass flow whereas I have none.
> 
> Two
> One of your schematics indicated that a bypass flow path existed.
> 
> Unless I am really missing something here the "negative pressures" cannot exist in this configuration.


I did have a lot of bypass with my Fx5 when I had the micron pad in. It was black but I still had good flow only because of this bypass. The will be fixed eventually when I start up on all this again.

In my design, there will be VERY little bypass. The purge tube will be sitting high and only water that has passed through the filter bag will be able to pass through the purge tube. So the bypass isn't much to worry about. A Tiny airline tube won't flow enough to keep up with the pumps demand if the micron pads clog up. Flow will be significantly reduced and the bucket walls will be under stress.

The negitive pressures will come from either 1) an internal TAAM Rio Hyperflow pump or an external pump connected to the output side.

Either way I do it, this system will be able to prime itself, or should anyways.

If I do make it with an internal pump, I will have to change the purge design slightly.



> Jg:
> 
> Please continue with you experimenting.
> 
> I am not being argumentative but only informative here.
> 
> No telling what will come out of your experiment ie.
> 
> As you are aware cannister pumps are low head but high flow whereas wet/dry external pumps are typically high head and fairly high flow.
> 
> What happens if we "hook up" one of your concepts, which is easily removable and maintainable, to the discharge side of of a wet/dry pump except that your concept has been modified such that fine sand is in a lower 6" diameter chamber which expands instantaneously into an 8" or 10" diameter chamber which is filled with sintered glass?
> 
> The maintenance would go from weekly or monthly to easily biannually!


I look for cross-sectional surface area when designing filters. 6" will clog up to quick, ask Fx5 owners. 10" + diameter is what im looking for.


----------



## jones57742

Jg:

Second first and what I meant to say is that the suction line of the external pump would be "hooked" to a wet/dry filtration sump and hence my configuration would constitute a very, very high end tertiary mechanical and biological treatment processes.

The 6" and 10" diameters were hypothetical and would obviously be based on flow in the lower chamber and contact time in the upper chamber.


Based upon the comments in your first section I guess that I have gotten completely lost here.

If your device is attached to the suction side of the pump and device clogs the pump will burn up*.

If your device is attached to the discharge side of the pump and device clogs the pump will burn up*.

*Assuming a reasonable size wall thickness for the device.

TR


----------



## Jgray152

> Based upon the comments in your first section I guess that I have gotten completely lost here.
> 
> If your device is attached to the suction side of the pump and device clogs the pump will burn up*.
> 
> If your device is attached to the discharge side of the pump and device clogs the pump will burn up*.
> 
> *Assuming a reasonable size wall thickness for the device.


This is remains a possibility for almost any setup evan canister filters. (besides w/d setups that would overflow to the pump). This is why maintenace is the key. Obviously going with a filtration setup like this means you want your water conditions really good so you will be checking it daily. Water starts to dirty up or the flow starts to dip down, your obviously going to check the filter and perform maintenance.

I have been looking for a fluid pressure valve that would open at a certain PSI (neg or pos) to allow the filter to bypass if the system becomes to clogged. I want to include it in the filter but it may be better to have it external.



> The 6" and 10" diameters were hypothetical and would obviously be based on flow in the lower chamber and contact time in the upper chamber.


Depending on how the filter is I suppose. Still, if you wan't lots of flow and a high turn over rate for any reason, the smaller the diameter the more maintenance you will need to do. The larger diameter buckets/pipe will serve better at maintenance intervals, flow capacity and flow velocity (contact time).


----------



## Jgray152

Jones, I have done some calculations of contact times for a few different filters. Eheim 2080 may have about 37 seconds of contact time to the bio media while the Fx5 has about 7.7 seconds. 

Go to *MFK.com*, then *Setups and Filtration*, then find the thread called *bio media - does slower flow rate give better filtering *. 

You may find that thread interesting.


----------



## sk115

JG, I have read several places thru your posts that you are concerned with your bucket collapsing under negaitve pressure. I think you should be more concerned with the lid poping off. Assuming your bucket (filter) will be located below your tank, you will definitely have a pressurized system.

I am working on a bucket filter myself and did some experimenting with a standard snap on lid. It only took a couple of inches water head pressure to pop the lid off.


----------



## jones57742

sk115 said:


> I am working on a bucket filter myself and did some experimenting with a standard snap on lid.


s1:

Could you please post the particulars of your experiment as well as some photographs?

TR


----------



## sk115

The first pic is the bucket with a hose attached to the lid. I filled the bucket with water and then poured water into the hose. once the level of water was around 5 to 6 inches above the top of the bucket the lid popped off.

The other bucket is my work in progress. the top is made of 1/4" acrylic and 3/4" plywood that I had lying around the garage. I grooved the acrylic to mate up with the lip of the bucket then filled it with silicone for a gasket. the 12 bolts are obviously over-kill but I'm the type of guy that makes an aquarium filter out of a 5 gallon bucket.

I'm still sorting the actual "filter" portion out. I went over to the monster fish whatever? forum lastnight and read up some on the whole contact time and flow rate stuff with regard to the nitrogen cycle so I am going to crunch thru that in the back of my mind for a while. I have some time before I need the filter up and running. (I promised my wife that I would build the stand before I went too far).


----------



## jones57742

s1:

I am lost I guess: is that a puppy dog supervising your work?    :chair:

I appreciate the photographs.

More particulars of your proposed implementation would be appreciated.

The nitrogen cycle is the least of your worries with what you are into!

TR


----------



## sk115

I took two pics and she stuck her face in both so I figured it was meant to be.

The way I figure it the Nitrogen cycle is the only thing I am worried about. Mechanical and chemical filtration are a piece of cake.

My concept is pretty simple...just like any other cannister really. Only its a bucket. I will siphon the water from the tank, it enters the bucket gets cleanified then gets pumped back up to the tank. I just thought of a name for it :idea:... The Water Church. Where water goes to get purified. Anyway I'm considering making the bucket simply a mechanical filter. I'm liking the idea of an FSB. If I go that route I would tee off the ouput side of the pump, regulate flow with a valve to the FSB and dump the other side straight back to the tank. I don't have a problem with not all of the water going thru the bio-filter because I know diffusion will guarantee that it all gets its turn eventually. Diffusion does nothing for solids, so I want as much water as I can to get a thorough screening.

FYI this is for a 115 gal tank. I just picked up a Quiet One 4000 pump (1017gph @ 0 head) I'm thinking this should give me the flow I need (want).

Any experience with a Quiet One? It doesn't seem quite that quiet.


----------



## Jgray152

> JG, I have read several places thru your posts that you are concerned with your bucket collapsing under negaitve pressure. I think you should be more concerned with the lid poping off. Assuming your bucket (filter) will be located below your tank, you will definitely have a pressurized system.


The cover I will use is a threaded cover. Screw Type. The only time there will be positive pressure in the canister is when the pump will be off, other than that there will always be negitive pressure. The cover can pop off with negitive pressures.



> I am working on a bucket filter myself and did some experimenting with a standard snap on lid. It only took a couple of inches water head pressure to pop the lid off.


I know a snap on lid wouldn't work which is why I went the the screw type cover. 

Jones, im going to make another thread about spray bars. I think you may find it some interest and it would be good to have some of your knowledge put into it as well.


----------



## sk115

I looked at the cover you are using and the part that the lid screws into snaps on to the bucket. Are you gluing the ring onto the bucket? 

Some quick math:
Assume top of cannister is 4' below top tank water level. 
48" head = 1.73psi
area of lid = 113 sq in
force trying to push lid off while pump isn't running = 196 lbs
Is your lid ready for this? 

I know that the pump running will reduce this, maybe even take it a little negative but my power goes out on occasion. I'm just trying to save you from a wet floor and an empty tank.


----------



## Jgray152

No. The ring does snap on but it snaps on tighter than any cover I know of. 

That ring clamps tight because it has a gasket inside for a water tight seal.

Will it work? Thats a question that is still on my mind. I have yet to test it. 

Not only do I need to worry about the 196lbs of force, but there will be a surge of pressure as well.

Can I ask how you got 1.73 psi

So we will see. Thanks for bringing that up though, I never did figure for that much pressure, never did the calculations. Over looked it.


----------



## Jgray152

Ok so I figured the head pressure out. 

1 foot of water equals .4333 lbs of pressure. 
2.31ft (SG) equals 1.00 psi
4.00ft equals 1.73 psi

I don't know how to calculate the surge pressure. Obveously we can only get a rough calculation considering the losses from friction and turbulence and direction changes etc.


----------

