cookie extreme Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 well, went yesterday to crackers place to have a look at his set-up. mainly his overflow because i had seen pic's of his tank before. and i was intrigued to see a full siphon in action. i had followed the thread about quiet overflows and all the arguments that followed which resulted in a locked thread. i had a "quiet" durso in my oppinion until i went to crackers place. you could hear a needle fall on the ground. (and this is no B.S.). so i went straight to carters and got some plumbing. installed it this morning took me all in all 11/2 hours. the results are absolutly awesome (now i can hear my pump in the basement :-? ). i also was able to increase my flow rate from the return to maximum something i wasn't able to do, because my single durso just couldn't handle anymore flow without increasing the noise level as well. i had 3100 liter per hour before now i am well over 4000liters with no noise at all. i didn't want to join the last thread about overflows and post pro and con's on durso and full siphon systems, because i never tried a full siphon, but the results are incrediable to say the least. full thumbs up to cracker and layton. best $50 i've spend in a long time. :bounce: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatix Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 I went Full syphon 10 days ago VERY VERY HAPPY aswell (so is the wife ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slappers Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 any pics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracker Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Great to hear....... Cheers for the frags too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Nice. Like I said, if you're after a truly quiet overflow, the Durso design is seriously flawed. You know there may be some truth in my posts after all ;-). Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chimera Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Like I said, if you're after a truly quiet overflow, the Durso design is seriously flawed. :roll: "seriously flawed", thats an overstatement and one that is complete and utter rubbish. note here I have not said crackers full syphon is worse or better, i still find the durso a seriously good design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracker Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 I wouldnt say the DURSO is flawed. it is just not 100% quiet. It is still a good design if a little noise isnt a serious issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chimera Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 now cracker THAT is the type of response I would expect. well put. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lduncan Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Well the original problem the Durso was trying to solve was the gurgling and flushing noise of a standard pipe overflow. And the cause of this was the fact that both air and water were traveling down the pipe at the same time, leading to the noise. So surely the logical response to this would be to eliminate the air from the equation, which would eliminate that as a noise source. But the design of the Durso is such that all it does is control the quantity and to a degree the "turbulence" (for lack of a better description) of the air entering the overflow pipe. In my opinion this looks like a serious design flaw, after all, the intention was to solve the noise problem. Why not do it completely by eliminating the air altogether, rather than just controlling it? Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracker Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Layton, I must agree..here, here!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracker Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Hows she holding up cookie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookie extreme Posted April 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 exellent. sofar no re-adjusting needed. and i can hear the tv from the computer room. hope i can sleep tonight without all the noise. i didn't use a safety back-up pipe at all. i figuered that i didn't have one with my durso so why bother now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracker Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Just keep a close eye for a few weeks, it can creep up on you. Keep the level lower if you can until it settles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Here's how I see it. Both systems have pros and cons. Craigs system works well, and is silent. One thing I'll agree with Layton there is no need for a standpipe at all if there is enough redundancy in the sump. Correct me if I'm wrong Craig, but as I see it, if you had no standpipe, but instead just the tap at the bottom, that would help eliminate the issue of water rising quite high in the overflow to build up pressure, after you re-start the sump return pump. Personally I would not run this system without a secondary pipe, as Craig has, incase of blockage. May never happen, but the tap scares me. Talking about tap position, one advantage not having it outside the tank, is it keeps it away from childrens fingers. I know having such a tap outside the tank when my kids were younger, would have been a recipe for certain disaster. Not if, when. . Craig has largely eliminated the risk of blockage by placing a filter at the top, he tested it while I watched and he could block at least 3/4 of it with virtually no effect. The Cracker Pipe will be the name for this system, you are now famous, Craig. To Dursos, Reefs one is completely silent. I questioned him about this & he explained how he achieved it, all very well thought out and logical, it can be done. I won't steal Reefs thunder, he can explain if he wishes when he comes back. Dursos have a restriction also, which is why I don't use a Durso, although the restriction is much less than the Cracker Pipe, but it's still there. I've never heard of a durso failing though, has anyone? To me, if I had to have one of these systems, it would be either or, they both work, but I'd have a secondary pipe as an emergency blockage water overflow, with both of the systems, but especially the Cracker Pipe. Probably not needed, but I'd feel better with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KP Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Nice summary Wasp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Thanks . I was expecting to get shot down in flames! :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracker Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Thanks wasp...I must admit, Reefs Dursos are very quiet....(For a DURSO)!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 ....(For a DURSO)!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feelers Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 I'm going for a weird mix of both due to the plumbing parts I have available. I'll have a full 25mm siphon with a ball valve(that will be totally open) and a 40mm durso (without the restriction in the bulkhead). So, the "theory" will be that most of the flow will go down the 25mm, lightening the load on the 40mm which will handle the excess. I believe (although its hard to confirm from how it was worded) that the restriction isnt necessary on larger diameter pipes such as the 40mm. Since my setup has to be "octoproof" there will be fine netting over the overflow area anyway, so I wont have to worry about blockages, and 40mm is pretty big even if something gets down there. At least the "whether it works test" will be able to show if its such a bad idea for others not to try. The sacrifices I make for science. As for my creation being the bastard child of the Durso and the Cracker pipe - It'll be going by the name Crack Pipe. Word. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 I use a full siphon on my freshwater system. It has one major difference. There is no tap to control the flow. Instead, I made a ballcock valve and fitted it to the top. This makes sure the water level is always above the inlet and self adjusts as the flow changes. I use a pleated cartridge filter on the pump so the flow range can easily change from 2:1 or even more. A tap system would need to be continuously adjusted on this system. On marine systems where the flow is almost constant a tap should be all you need. The level in the ballcock chamber only changes ±15mm from low-flow to high-flow and it's only half open at maximum flow. The inlet is 50mm wide and can open to 25mm so blockage risk is minimised. There is no safety overflow. The system has run perfectly for over 10 years with no blockages or overflows... If you're after a self adjusting system this works well and can all be made completely from plastic too. I have a bit of stainless on mine but it could easily be changed... Wonder what kind of pipe this would be called!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 That ball valve idea is very ingenius ! Well done the both of you ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chimera Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 It'll be going by the name Crack Pipe. Wonder what kind of pipe this would be called!! :lol: time to make a chimera pipe... but that just doesnt sound anywhere near as good. need to change my username to 'drain' to go with the flow... excuse the double pun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracker Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 I use a full siphon on my freshwater system. It has one major difference. There is no tap to control the flow. Instead, I made a ballcock valve and fitted it to the top. This makes sure the water level is always above the inlet and self adjusts as the flow changes. I use a pleated cartridge filter on the pump so the flow range can easily change from 2:1 or even more. A tap system would need to be continuously adjusted on this system. On marine systems where the flow is almost constant a tap should be all you need. The level in the ballcock chamber only changes ±15mm from low-flow to high-flow and it's only half open at maximum flow. The inlet is 50mm wide and can open to 25mm so blockage risk is minimised. There is no safety overflow. The system has run perfectly for over 10 years with no blockages or overflows... If you're after a self adjusting system this works well and can all be made completely from plastic too. I have a bit of stainless on mine but it could easily be changed... Wonder what kind of pipe this would be called!! Can you post a pic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasp Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 I can almost feel Craig thinking from here. We will soon see the "Balled Cracker Pipe" :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Posted April 23, 2006 Report Share Posted April 23, 2006 Was expecting to be asked. Will do so asap. May be off to Korea later so will post before then if I can otherwise when I get back... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.