Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Gravel vacuum

Started by Guest_frogwhacker_* , Aug 12 2011 02:48 PM

Next

Please log in to reply

36 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_frogwhacker_*

Guests

Posted 12 August 2011 - 02:48 PM

My old gravel vacuum just broke last night. Just the basic siphon vac. The only type I've ever used. I was curious about some input on what works well for others. Does anyone use the battery powered ones or the squeeze-bulb type or even the ones that connect to a faucet? Most of my substrate is creek gravel, but I do have sand in one tank and it has a water depth of 31 inches so it's a little more challenging anyway. Just thought I might get some ideas on what works well for others before I commit to another one. Any and all ideas are welcome. Thank you.

Steve.

Back to top

#2 Guest_exasperatus2002_*

Guests

Posted 12 August 2011 - 02:52 PM

I tried the battery powered ones once, they lack power, not worth the money. Python is a good one but they're going into bankruptcy. They are still available as are knock offs.

Back to top

#3 Michael Wolfe

Board of Directors

North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage

Posted 12 August 2011 - 04:09 PM

or even the ones that connect to a faucet?

I have a python brand that connects to the faucet and has about 30 ft of hose... got it from the guy I bought my 75 from... I use it all the time and it is a very nice and clean set up... not like sloshing buckets and all... I can even run it from the tank to the utility sink in the laundry room... and it has the venturi adapter thing on it... turn it one way it sucks... turn it the other way, you can fill the tank back up (dose with PRIME while filling).

Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin

Back to top

#4 Guest_jblaylock_*

Guests

Posted 12 August 2011 - 04:36 PM

I have a python brand that connects to the faucet and has about 30 ft of hose... got it from the guy I bought my 75 from... I use it all the time and it is a very nice and clean set up... not like sloshing buckets and all... I can even run it from the tank to the utility sink in the laundry room... and it has the venturi adapter thing on it... turn it one way it sucks... turn it the other way, you can fill the tank back up (dose with PRIME while filling).

Same for me

Back to top

#5 Guest_EricaWieser_*

Guests

Posted 12 August 2011 - 05:25 PM

I just bought a Python brand No Spill Clean And Fill®, and am actually going out to get further adapters for it to fit to the sink either today or tomorrow. If I owned my own house I'd set up an automatic water changer by tapping into the water line, but I don't have that kind of luxury because I rent. So a Python is good enough for me. (I got sick of buckets after years of hauling them around.)

Why are they going out of business?

Edit:
Here's the link to the automatic water changer I'd use if I was allowed to make changes to the water line:
http://www.aquaticpl...nge-system.html

Edited by EricaWieser, 12 August 2011 - 05:26 PM.

Back to top

#6 Guest_frogwhacker_*

Guests

Posted 13 August 2011 - 01:39 PM

Thank y'all so much for the replies. Sounds like python is a good direction. I sometimes need to watch my tap water usage though, and I've got two 10"s, a 45, a 55, and a 150 that I do a 10% - 20% change in weekly, so I'm curious if anyone has a rough estimate of how much extra tap water it requires to clean with one compared to the "siphon and bucket" type of system? Thanks again.

Steve.

Back to top

#7 Guest_frogwhacker_*

Guests

Posted 14 August 2011 - 06:41 AM

I'm curious if anyone has a rough estimate of how much extra tap water it requires to clean with one compared to the "siphon and bucket" type of system?

OK, probably not a fair question as most people don't have to pay that close of attention to water usage. I'm really curious if the python type systems have more suction, thereby "speeding up" the process and minimizing the extra water usage required by using tap pressure as the siphon. I realize, that by the nature of the process, these systems will use more water. I'm just not sure how much more water because I've never used one. More suction is something I could also use as my fish seem to have heavy mulm, and I've never felt that my old vacuum picked it up well, even with a 3-4 foot elevation difference. Thanks again for the replies.

Steve

Back to top

#8 Guest_EricaWieser_*

Guests

Posted 14 August 2011 - 12:17 PM

So you don't want to remove water, just the mulm? Okay. I saw a design once on youtube where the person hooked up the gravel vacuum in such a way as to do that.

I personally do not recommend that design, though. It does not alleviate the building nitrate concentration in the water.

Edited by EricaWieser, 14 August 2011 - 12:22 PM.

Back to top

#9 Guest_frogwhacker_*

Guests

Posted 14 August 2011 - 03:00 PM

So you don't want to remove water, just the mulm? Okay. I saw a design once on youtube where the person hooked up the gravel vacuum in such a way as to do that.

I personally do not recommend that design, though. It does not alleviate the building nitrate concentration in the water.

Oh yes, I do want to continue with my weekly water changes while I'm cleaning the substrate. If I'm understanding the design right of the Python type vacuums, they use tap pressure to create the siphon, and this tap water used to create this siphon is going down the drain with the water siphoned from the tank. It's the use of the tap water that creates the siphon that I'm concerned about. Sorry about the confusion. I probably shouldn't try to ask questions while I'm working night shift. I might be able to make more sense in a few days.(maybe) Thanks again. Your help is very appreciated.

Steve.

Back to top

#10 Michael Wolfe

Board of Directors

North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage

Posted 14 August 2011 - 04:49 PM

Disclaimer: Some people like theories and ideas, they are pure and absolute, we call these people philosophers. Other people like empirical data, they are hard and reliable, we call these people engineers.

So I set out to apply a little real world experience to the question about water usage.

IMG00112.jpg 168.72KB 1 downloads
My python is 40ft. and my water pressure is such that when set to fill, I was able to fill a five gallon bucket in 1 minute 25 seconds.

IMG00108.jpg 73.84KB 0 downloads

I put the full five gallon bucket approximately 49 inches off the ground (measured from the top of the bucket) and drained and refilled it twice.

IMG00107.jpg 99.13KB 0 downloads

IMG00109.jpg 55KB 0 downloads
Using a 6ft piece of 5/8 inch ID hose, the bucket could be drained in 1 minute 5 seconds. (faster than I could fill it up!)
Using a 6ft piece of 1/2 inch ID hose, the bucket was drained in 2 minutes 0 seconds.

IMG00110.jpg 129.55KB 0 downloads

IMG00111.jpg 121.52KB 0 downloads
Using the python and the water pressure, the bucket was drained in 1 minute 45 seconds.
But this time I collected all of the water coming out of the tap (which should have been the 5 gallons, plus whatever was being ‘used’ to create the venture effect). Water collected was 15 gallons.

So there, you go. One data set for one set of variables, that seems to somewhat simulate a real world situation. 10 gallons were ‘wasted’ down the drain. I love my python for filling the tanks, but it makes me stop and think about using them to take water out.

Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin

Back to top

#11 Guest_Doug_Dame_*

Guests

Posted 14 August 2011 - 06:32 PM

So I set out to apply a little real world experience to the question about water usage. ..(snip snip) 10 gallons were ‘wasted’ down the drain. I love my python for filling the tanks, but it makes me stop and think about using them to take water out.

I love experiments !!!

Another way of analyzing the data would be to say that a water change costs 15 gallons of water, using this technology.

Whereas no water change costs 0 gallons of water and (we hypothesize) x-amount of dead fish y-time units in the future.

Back to top

#12 Guest_frogwhacker_*

Guests

Posted 14 August 2011 - 08:20 PM

/color][/size][/size]
So I set out to apply a little real world experience to the question about water usage.
My python is 40ft. and my water pressure is such that when set to fill, I was able to fill a five gallon bucket in 1 minute 25 seconds.
Using a 6ft piece of 5/8 inch ID hose, the bucket could be drained in 1 minute 5 seconds. (faster than I could fill it up!)
Using a 6ft piece of 1/2 inch ID hose, the bucket was drained in 2 minutes 0 seconds.
Using the python and the water pressure, the bucket was drained in 1 minute 45 seconds.
But this time I collected all of the water coming out of the tap (which should have been the 5 gallons, plus whatever was being ‘used’ to create the venture effect). Water collected was 15 gallons.

So there, you go. One data set for one set of variables, that seems to somewhat simulate a real world situation. 10 gallons were ‘wasted’ down the drain. I love my python for filling the tanks, but it makes me stop and think about using them to take water out.

Awesome! Absolutely Awesome. Thank you so much. I wasn't wanting anyone to have to go to this much trouble to answer my questions, but since you did, I'm sure glad it's posted where everyone can make use of it. I'd feel terribly guilty if I was the only one benifiting from all of your efforts.

Since you've done all the hard work, all I have to do is grab a calculator and see how this applies to my particular situation.

Maybe I'm a geek, but I'm so excited I've got to share this:
It appears that water usage with the python is 3 times that of a typical 'siphon and bucket' system. The combined water capacity of all 5 of my tanks is 270 gallons, thus, my combined normal weekly 20% water change equals 54 gallons. With the python, I could expect it to equal three times that, which is 162 gallons. The python would therefore use 108 gallons more than my conventional method.

My family has an approximate weekly water usage of 700 gallons. Therefore, the use of a python system would increase my water usage by the equivilant of one extra typical day of water usage per week.

Furthermore, it appears that a 5/8" hose, siphoning from an elevation of 49 inches, has more suction than the python, as it can empty the 5 gallon bucket faster.

My household water source is two 750 gallon cisterns. If it doesn't rain for 2 weeks, I'm hauling water. It appears that my best solution is to stick with the 'siphon and bucket' system, but use one with a 5/8" hose.

Again, Thank you so much Michael, and all who have responded and been so patient with me on this.

Steve.

Back to top

#13 Guest_Uland_*

Guests

Posted 15 August 2011 - 10:54 AM

Remember, you can just use the python to pull the initial siphon and then shut the tap water off. This only works if your tap is below the tank you're draining - but honestly the python doesn't really work all that well when tap is more that a couple of feet above the tap anyhow.

Back to top

#14 Michael Wolfe

Board of Directors

North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage

Posted 15 August 2011 - 11:09 AM

Remember, you can just use the python to pull the initial siphon and then shut the tap water off. This only works if your tap is below the tank you're draining - but honestly the python doesn't really work all that well when tap is more that a couple of feet above the tap anyhow.

Really good point!! The philosophy is perfect... now the engineer wants to experiment.. I am traveling out of town this week, but will do a water change using this method next weekend... just to see how it works... and collect some data on this as well.

Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin

Back to top

#15 Guest_nativeplanter_*

Guests

Posted 15 August 2011 - 11:14 AM

Disclaimer: Some people like theories and ideas, they are pure and absolute, we call these people philosophers. Other people like empirical data, they are hard and reliable, we call these people engineers.

Ahem - theory is based on empirical data... not "just an idea"... :fishy:

Awesome work Michael! Loved it!

Back to top

#16 Michael Wolfe

Board of Directors

North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage

Posted 20 August 2011 - 10:47 PM

Remember, you can just use the python to pull the initial siphon and then shut the tap water off. This only works if your tap is below the tank you're draining - but honestly the python doesn't really work all that well when tap is more that a couple of feet above the tap anyhow.

OK, so I tried this approach and can add the following data.

Top of the aquarium water line 54 inches high (similar to the bucket in the original exaple).
Second bucket sitting in utility sick 23 inches off the ground, but the utility sink tap was approx. 18 inches higher than that (which was good since the bucket fit under it, but meant that there was not much height differential for the siphon).
I ran the faucet at full volume until the siphon was established and then shut it off (approximately 10 seconds)
The siphon was very weak, and took 5 minutes to fill a five gallon bucket. Also, the weakness of the siphone meant that I had no real 'suction' to vacuum the gravel. Yes, it drained water, but much slower than a tube siphon into a bucket woul dhave been, and no vacuuming action.

Conclusion: To effectively vacuum the 75 gallon tank, I need to use the venturi effect and run the faucet. Although the siphon was maintained after the faucet was turned off, the height differental is not enough to drain the tank quickly.

Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin

Back to top

#17 Guest_EricaWieser_*

Guests

Posted 21 August 2011 - 09:21 AM

Conclusion: To effectively vacuum the 75 gallon tank, I need to use the venturi effect and run the faucet. Although the siphon was maintained after the faucet was turned off, the height differental is not enough to drain the tank quickly.

I have to run the water, too. I tried turning the water off when emptying my tank and it just stopped. My sink appears to be the same height or higher than my tank.

Back to top

#18 Guest_frogwhacker_*

Guests

Posted 21 August 2011 - 07:15 PM

For the sake of water usage, I decided to stay with the old 'siphon and bucket' system. I bought a TOM gravel vacuum with the hand pump on it to initiate the siphoning. It's a little cheap feeling, but for 10$, it's not bad. It came with a 60" hose with a 7/16" ID. I replaced it with a hose with a 1/2" ID. This doesn't sound like much but the nozzle only has a 1" ID. It may not cover as much ground in one swipe as some, but with that small of ID nozzle it's got some real pull. Almost anything that will fit in the 1" nozzle will get sucked up. I'm sure glad the shiners are afraid of it. I actually may have to go back to the 7/16" ID hose just to cut back on the suction a little. I was kind of hoping to find a good excuse to get a python and eliminate carrying 5 gallon buckets of fish water through the house, but I just can't justify the extra water usage. Refilling isn't so bad. I use a plastic coffee can, so it takes a while, but I enjoy watching the fish play in the incoming water I'm pouring in. Plus, I'm thinking I can take some of the money I saved and put it toward a 75 gallon tank I've been looking at.

It rained here today and both cisterns are full, so everyone gets a tank cleaning and water change tonight whether they need it or not.(or like it or not)

Thanks again to all.

Steve

Back to top

#19 Guest_az9_*

Guests

Posted 02 October 2011 - 09:44 PM

For the sake of water usage, I decided to stay with the old 'siphon and bucket' system. I bought a TOM gravel vacuum with the hand pump on it to initiate the siphoning. It's a little cheap feeling, but for 10$, it's not bad. It came with a 60" hose with a 7/16" ID. I replaced it with a hose with a 1/2" ID. This doesn't sound like much but the nozzle only has a 1" ID. It may not cover as much ground in one swipe as some, but with that small of ID nozzle it's got some real pull. Almost anything that will fit in the 1" nozzle will get sucked up. I'm sure glad the shiners are afraid of it. I actually may have to go back to the 7/16" ID hose just to cut back on the suction a little. I was kind of hoping to find a good excuse to get a python and eliminate carrying 5 gallon buckets of fish water through the house, but I just can't justify the extra water usage. Refilling isn't so bad. I use a plastic coffee can, so it takes a while, but I enjoy watching the fish play in the incoming water I'm pouring in. Plus, I'm thinking I can take some of the money I saved and put it toward a 75 gallon tank I've been looking at.

It rained here today and both cisterns are full, so everyone gets a tank cleaning and water change tonight whether they need it or not.(or like it or not)

Thanks again to all.

Steve

I don't have a python but want to make something that works the same to remove sloughed off bacteria in the bottom of my rotating biological contact filter tank for my 500 gallon recirculating system.

Isn't the python simply a hose with one end siphoning and on the other end a 't' with one end of the 't' water running in and the other side of the 't' the water running out creating suction? Or does one need a valve to shut off flow briefly to fill the hose and create suction?

if that is the case it seems I could easily make one myself with some hose and PVC parts and a thread to hook a garden hose I have that is connected to my water supply.

No issues with cleaning the bottom of 300 gallon circular tank as it's self cleaning with settleable solids going down the drain via centripedal flow to a 55 gallon drum clarifier and the suspended solids are removed mid depth via a u tube siphon.

Edited by az9, 02 October 2011 - 09:47 PM.

Back to top

#20 Guest_Kanus_*

Guests

Posted 02 October 2011 - 10:58 PM

I use a python to change the water in my 75 and 29 gallon tanks. To minimize water usage, however (keep in mind I don't need high power suction to gravel vac, I am simply removing water) set my siphon hose in the tank and string the other side across the house into the bathtub. I start a siphon the old fashioned way (i.e. by mouth) and set the end in a 5 gallon bucket sitting in the bathtub. In this way I can remove water easily and without waste, any fish that happens to get sucked up (I usually use a net over the end in the tank though) instead of going down the drain or being pulverized in the python-faucet thing, gets stuck in a bucket (the water overflows out of the bucket, fish usually stay towards the bottom). I generally pin the gravel vac to a certain level by setting the glass top on the tube or using my mag-float, and therefore can choose how much water to take out, while being able to "set it and forget it."

Once that's done, I set it up like normal and fill via faucet. Less waste, less attention needed, every bit as effective, at least if you can go without gravel vacuuming.

Edit: I am in a third-story apartment unit. If you have a house and enough hose, it would be easy to divert the tank water outside into a garden or wherever you wanted to make it more useful and potentially gain more suction.

Edited by Kanus, 02 October 2011 - 10:59 PM.