Thanks again for the input;
I would like to clarify though that I was talking about using a ball valve on the input/return side that would increase head pressure to regulate the gph, not the return/drain. I understand the basic law of what goes in must come out weather it is over the top or through the calflo. That is why the calflo will be able to drain at least twice as much as the maximum return/input. I have heard a few stories of curious turbo snails with drains.
I re-read through the thread that I am referencing and I guess the white pvc under the substrate is the input/drain for the CL system and the 4 way squirt if the return/input? This is a top down system and not a bottom up.
I have been convinced, thanks to the helpful feedback in this tread, that 1750 gph is too much for a sump/fuge.
I would still like to do is use my existing pump for flow instead of purchasing and installing separate power heads. I would like to plan ahead a little and do some blueprinting to use the 1750 as a closed loop system and have three or four spray nozzles within the live rock creating flow out through tunnels which should pull flow in through the live rock, right? Is having continuous unidirectional flow like power heads not as optimal as having an alternating system like the 4 way squirts? I know it all depends on what the goal is and what type of stock will be propagated but ideally mimicking the ocean’s currents and flow seems like the answer.
So…how is the drain/input to a CL pump achieved, filterless? If so then what is the long term effects of all the debris running through a pump? I have read that the CL system is self explanatory and is one continuous piece of plumbing with openings to allow the water to exit and enter, but I think that it could be separated and would be more efficient this way. The CL pump will pull in what it puts out and should not effect the drain or return of the sump/fuge return pump or calflo drain, right?






Reply With Quote
