• Amused
  • Angry
  • Annoyed
  • Awesome
  • Bemused
  • Cocky
  • Cool
  • Crazy
  • Crying
  • Depressed
  • Down
  • Drunk
  • Embarrased
  • Enraged
  • Friendly
  • Geeky
  • Godly
  • Happy
  • Hateful
  • Hungry
  • Innocent
  • Meh
  • Piratey
  • Poorly
  • Sad
  • Secret
  • Shy
  • Sneaky
  • Tired
  • Page 1 of 11 1234 ... LastLast
    Results 1 to 20 of 201

    Thread: Low-Profile Shower Filter

    1. #1
      kimini is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Oct 2007
      Location
      SoCal
      Posts
      1,694

      Low-Profile Shower Filter

      We live in Southern California ("SoCal"), where high electricity cost and koi ponds make for uneasy bedfellows. Under the San Diego Gas & Electric regime, we are charged per the following:
      • 0 - 393 kWh, $0.27
      • 394 - 1208 kWh, $0.48
      • >1208 kWh, $0.55

      Before making any changes, our total home usage averaged around 750 kilowatt-hours, well into second-tier pricing. I wanted to try out a shower filter because of all its claimed advantages, but also to keep electrical costs low. Before starting the conversion, total power usage for the moving-bed system was measured:
      • Main pump, W. Lim, 375W (~ 7000 gph)
      • Skimmer pump, W. Lim, 150W
      • UV, 120W
      • Aeration, moving bed, 80W
      • Aeration, pond, 45W
      Total: ~770W
      (That means the pond along consumes about 3/4 of our total power usage)

      So, how to reduce power?
      The first step was to replace the largest consumer, the main pump. Say what you will about FlowFriend pumps–but the numbers don't lie*. Switching to the FF Pro reduced pump power from 375W to 70W (yes, 300W less), so the FF will pay for itself in about 27 months. Granted, FF pumps are only an advantage at very low head and/or high electricity cost. Total dynamic head was around 0.27 meters, or 11". With higher pumping head, the FF may well lose all its advantage, so be sure to run the numbers before considering one.

      * Some people claim airlift setups will always be better than any pump. I can never tell whether they don't understand, or are purposely doing an apples-to-oranges comparison to arrive at their desired conclusion. Yes, air-lifts are superior - when lifting water 0 - 2", and perfectly suited for circulating water at high volume, but are completely out of their element when asked to actually lift water. To be blunt, an airlift cannot lift water 0.28 meters (11"), moving 7100gph, while consuming 70 Watts.

      Shower filter supporters report all sorts of benefits, including:
      1. Superior filtration due to higher oxygen levels
      2. Off-gases ammonia (debated)
      3. Eliminates nitrite (debated)
      4. Eliminates nitrate (debated)
      5. Eliminates green water and the need for UV (debated)
      6. Makes you more attractive, definitely

      I'm skeptical because of the lack of real data and the proponderence of wishful thinking, but was willing to give it a try to find out. To be fair, just because something isn't understood doesn't mean that it doesn't work, but the reasons why are important. A shower has a couple of other power-related advantages as well:
      1. Because the shower replaces the moving-bed, that aeration pump goes away as well, freeing up power.
      2. The UV may go away if the claimed benefits of the shower are true. If it can be eliminated, total power usage drops to around 350W, to less than half the original amount.

      That said, even if the shower does have all the above benefits, it's not perfect because the system is at a much higher risk for failure:
      1. If the pump stops for whatever reason, the filter media immediately starts drying out at "some" rate. How long the bio film will last depends upon a number of factors, but it's likely to be in trouble within hours or a day at most. Once the pump starts back up, the pond will then experience a huge ammonia spike until the bio reestablishes itself.
      2. Shower media must be fed very clean water; if algae gets into it, it'll quickly plug up the pores. Some argue this isn't a problem, but I think it's a concern.
      3. #2 pretty much requires an RDF or sieve
      4. The sieve or RDF must be very reliable. If either fails, it'll quickly plug up the shower media. In comparison, a moving-bed setup will just passively sit there if the pump or RDF fails. Sure, some algae may get through, but as long as the air pump on the media keeps running, the bio will live for many days.

      So, how to make a shower filter that's energy efficient? Shower filters are traditionally vertically-stacked trays, but I wondered, "why can't it be in parallel instead of series?" That is, instead of going tall, make it wide. About that same time I saw that Zac Penn was working along the same lines, manufacturing low-profile shower filters using large ceramic filter media blocks. Based upon these, I designed a low-profile unit that best fit my oddball space.

      The basic box. Its odd shape fits its destination. The two ribs help structural integrity:
      Name:  IMG_20180911_134525.jpg
Views: 2758
Size:  155.0 KB

      Unit was filled with a couple inches of water after being placed on our sloped driveway - no leaks!
      Name:  IMG_20180909_102903.jpg
Views: 2748
Size:  123.9 KB

      Zac Penn's perforated media stands, with 1" clearance around each column:
      Name:  IMG_20180909_105115.jpg
Views: 2748
Size:  127.2 KB

      With media test blocks to assess overall height:
      Name:  IMG_20180909_110025.jpg
Views: 2759
Size:  143.2 KB

      How the media blocks stack up, which I also obtained from Zac:
      Name:  IMG_20180909_105346.jpg
Views: 2747
Size:  106.0 KB

      Zac suggested this ultra-low profile water distribution system. Water comes in through a central 4" line and gets evenly distributed to 12 upturned ports (2" elbows cut down to further reduce head pressure). Each will have a perforated plate to further distribute the water evenly over each column.
      Name:  IMG_20180912_120759.jpg
Views: 2749
Size:  165.5 KB

      Filling the unit with media
      Name:  IMG_20180912_174530.jpg
Views: 2737
Size:  158.6 KB

      Done, for now. This shot shows why the unit is shaped the way it is. It hides somewhat behind the wall, and the offset also keeps the back end from hanging off backside of its platform. Still to do is adding the distribution plates, leveling the pipes, and plumbing the unit:
      Name:  IMG_20180913_073328.jpg
Views: 2750
Size:  172.0 KB

      Name:  IMG_20180913_073408.jpg
Views: 2742
Size:  181.9 KB
      Last edited by kimini; 04-07-2019 at 05:06 PM.

      • Remove Ads
        Advertising from Google
        Promoting Koi and Pond
        keeping since 2007

         

    2. #2
      kevin32 is offline Inactivated
      is chillin
       
      Feeling:
      Friendly
       
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      Location
      Brentwood, ca up north
      Posts
      8,029
      Great post. What rpm are you running the ff pro at?

    3. #3
      kimini is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Oct 2007
      Location
      SoCal
      Posts
      1,694
      With the moving-bed it's 900-1000 rpm. It'll be increased once the shower is online.

    4. #4
      kwickcut's Avatar
      kwickcut is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2007
      Location
      South Jersey
      Posts
      2,327
      this is all i can say about showers, i dont know what they do scientifically speaking but i know what the water looks like 3 days after installing one. pond is 10,000 gallons and is 8' deep. you can see the sun sparkling off the bottom of the pond floor. for lack of a better term the water sparkles and has a brilliant shine it never had until i added the shower.







      kwick
      Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead. - Benjamin Franklin.

      you cant fix stupid no matter how hard you try.

    5. #5
      kevin32 is offline Inactivated
      is chillin
       
      Feeling:
      Friendly
       
      Join Date
      Aug 2014
      Location
      Brentwood, ca up north
      Posts
      8,029
      Quote Originally Posted by kimini View Post
      With the moving-bed it's 900-1000 rpm. It'll be increased once the shower is online.
      Nice. I'm running my standard to a 6 foot shower and at 1240 rpm ff display says 128 watts. Kill a watt says less. I'm only using this and a 40 liter air pump. If I ever do the big pond I will do a lower head shower since I'll have 8x the pond volume and will crank it up. I'll probably get another pump also. Maybe I'll get the pro. I do like my 4 tier shower but seems just more convenient since it takes up less space but the added head pressure kinda sucks imo

    6. #6
      aquaholic is offline Supporting Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Oct 2010
      Location
      Australia
      Posts
      290
      There is another option you may want to consider. A slow fill and fast purge system similar to the grow bed aquaponics. This allows low powered pumps or low flow pumps to gradually fill a bio filter tank until it reaches the fill point which then creates a rapid siphon flush out.


      Advantages;
      * rising water within bio media pushes all old air out so fresh oxygen rich air is guaranteed.
      * total use of all bio media surface area even if channelling or tightly packed bio media is utilised.
      * the periodic fast flush /drain creates a surge (wave tank) allowing use of bottom drains with very low water flows.
      * the bio media gets cleaned each flush
      * excellent recovery rate after power failures.


      Cons;
      * can be noisy.
      * a water filled filter is heavy.

    7. #7
      IAmHolland is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Jul 2018
      Location
      Land of Infernos
      Posts
      102
      .
      Last edited by IAmHolland; 09-20-2018 at 12:50 AM.

    8. #8
      BWG is offline Senior Member
      is 999875421235621456478541.1
       
      Feeling:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Mar 2013
      Location
      ZONE 5
      Posts
      3,808
      Surprised after all of the build data and successful installs posted on Europeon sites such as https://www.koivrienden.com nobody in the US is building with airlifts. Even the FF Pro can't compete with the efficiency.
      Last edited by BWG; 09-15-2018 at 11:06 AM.

    9. #9
      IAmHolland is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Jul 2018
      Location
      Land of Infernos
      Posts
      102
      .
      Last edited by IAmHolland; 09-20-2018 at 12:51 AM.

    10. #10
      BWG is offline Senior Member
      is 999875421235621456478541.1
       
      Feeling:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Mar 2013
      Location
      ZONE 5
      Posts
      3,808
      Select the English language setting in the upper right and you will still need a translator. Here is also an England airlift site. https://www.airlift.eu

      The FFs are great pumps. But for people like me paying 12 cents a KWH for electricity, with no caps, it's extremely difficult to justify the nearly $2000 difference in price (unions and shipping included). Plus you are either financing the difference or loosing investment income from the $2000 making the payoff even more difficult. With CA progressive electric rates it's doable. Great engineering in the FF pump series. The motor is only 8% to 12% of the efficiency gain. The major advantage is the efficiency gained by the pump design.

      • Remove Ads
        Advertising from Google
        Promoting Koi and Pond
        keeping since 2007

         

    11. #11
      ricshaw is offline Senior Member
      is who misses his Koi.
       
      Feeling:
      Bemused
       
      Join Date
      Jan 2016
      Location
      Southern California
      Posts
      2,085
      Is it fair to test a shower filter's performance by changing a key design component? If a shorter, wider, tray configuration is better... why are we not seeing more showers like this?

    12. #12
      BWG is offline Senior Member
      is 999875421235621456478541.1
       
      Feeling:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Mar 2013
      Location
      ZONE 5
      Posts
      3,808
      I have never seen a study where someone took water directly before and after a shower to show what's happening. Surprised this hasn't happend at a university as a student project.

    13. #13
      catfish whiskers's Avatar
      catfish whiskers is offline Supporting Member ~ WWKC President
      is Looking forward to a better
      year
       
      Feeling:
      Friendly
       
      Join Date
      Dec 2009
      Location
      So Cal
      Posts
      3,358
      Everything I’ve read about shower filters , is more flow is better . That the water “crashing” against a hard media has a great aerobic benifit for both oxygenation of the water itself , and oxygenation of the benificial bacteria.
      There are also many claims that the waters force helps keep the media clean , and washes away dead bacteria to give a spot for new bacteria to grow onto. After all , the bacteria on the media only needs the Amonia in the water flowing through it , and oxygen to feed it , not anything else . So I think the more Amonia and oxygen in the water that we feed a shower filter , the better.
      The theory , is that having a shower with multiple stacked trays gets all the flow to all of the media as it flows from the top tray through to the bottom tray.
      If You had a stack of (4) 4 cu ft trays , (16 cu ft total ) and fed it 10,000 GPH , each single cu ft of media would get 2,500 GPH.
      Spread that 16 cu ft out in one single level tray , with the same 10,000 GPH flow , and each single cu ft of media only gets 625 GPH.
      If that low profile shower was Your only option , I think it would still be a good bio filter , but not as efficient as the stacked version.

    14. #14
      BWG is offline Senior Member
      is 999875421235621456478541.1
       
      Feeling:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Mar 2013
      Location
      ZONE 5
      Posts
      3,808
      But for a low head pump a 1.5 ft high shower will get more flow from the pump vs a 6 foot high one due to 4.5 ft difference in head pressure. For the FF series this flow difference will be substantial and will compensate somewhat. Maybe the ERIC filters were on to something?
      Last edited by BWG; 09-15-2018 at 01:07 PM.

    15. #15
      stevek is offline Supporting Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Jan 2010
      Location
      wakefield, RI
      Posts
      1,160
      Quote Originally Posted by BWG View Post
      Surprised after all of the build data and successful installs posted on Europeon sites such as https://www.koivrienden.com nobody in the US is building with airlifts. Even the FF Pro can't compete with the efficiency.
      They talk funny on this site....

    16. #16
      ricshaw is offline Senior Member
      is who misses his Koi.
       
      Feeling:
      Bemused
       
      Join Date
      Jan 2016
      Location
      Southern California
      Posts
      2,085
      Quote Originally Posted by catfish whiskers View Post
      If You had a stack of (4) 4 cu ft trays , (16 cu ft total ) and fed it 10,000 GPH , each single cu ft of media would get 2,500 GPH.
      Spread that 16 cu ft out in one single level tray , with the same 10,000 GPH flow , and each single cu ft of media only gets 625 GPH.
      B I N G O ! ! That is the difference I was referring to.

    17. #17
      BWG is offline Senior Member
      is 999875421235621456478541.1
       
      Feeling:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Mar 2013
      Location
      ZONE 5
      Posts
      3,808
      FlowFriend Pro

      1400 RPM
      0.5 meter - 1.6 feet 11,888 GPH 185 watts
      2 meters - 6.5 feet Zero Output

      1800 RPM
      0.5 meter - 1.6 feet 16,662 GPH 245 watts
      2 meters - 6.5 feet 4,755 GPH 440 watts

      For the FF Pro pumps a low shower pays.
      Last edited by BWG; 09-15-2018 at 03:27 PM.

    18. #18
      tbullard is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2010
      Location
      Augusta,GA
      Posts
      1,397
      When is a shower filter no longer a shower filter?

      If energy consumption is the priority then an RDF to moving bed filter would be the best choice at basically 0 head. With that combo your only circulating water and not lifting it. Of Course there is the added cost of running the air pump.

    19. #19
      IAmHolland is offline Senior Member
      This user has no status.
       
      Feeling:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Jul 2018
      Location
      Land of Infernos
      Posts
      102
      .
      Last edited by IAmHolland; 09-20-2018 at 12:51 AM.

    20. #20
      icu2's Avatar
      icu2 is offline Administrator ~ WWKC President
      ~ WWKC Treasurer
      is sorry otters exist
       
      Feeling:
      Annoyed
       
      Join Date
      Feb 2007
      Location
      Poulsbo, WA
      Posts
      32,942
      Quote Originally Posted by IAmHolland View Post
      The conversion process by the AOB takes time, dwell time. None of that is taken to account. By studies I've seen, the process takes a long time. The benefit to having higher turnover rates, or lower rates and more trays (as stated by the above folks).

      .
      .
      .

      Also the conversion process takes a long time. It's not instantaneous through contact with media, but rather repetition through stacks or higher flow rates to the same media.
      I've always heard the exact opposite and that the nitrification process happened almost instantly and little
      to no dwell time was needed.
      --Steve



      Koiphen 2021 Koi Person of the Year!

      • Remove Ads
        Advertising from Google
        Promoting Koi and Pond
        keeping since 2007

         

    Page 1 of 11 1234 ... LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •