.
.
Last edited by IAmHolland; 09-20-2018 at 12:52 AM.
They are basically saying with certain media you get more surface area so you could have a 6 inch deep tier and provide as much as s 12 inch tier with say a ceramic media or even feather rock. I can't really say as I've never used a very low profile setup. Don says the bio home media has lots of surface area and wont break down like ceramic media from china
I correct my post and don wondered if the ceramic will break down. He didnt say it will break down but he had some concerns. I'm using the China ceramic I hope it holds up unlike cermedia
In my opinion, a well running shower should have enough agitation to generate foam from DOCs. While the off-gassing of dissolved ammonia is debated (and in my opinion unsupported), it is less debatable that high flow can separate DOCs from water. Just look at foam fractionators and protein skimmers. Even if you can't see the foam, the separation happens at the microscopic level. This is because the mixing of water with air reduces surface tension and allows hydrophobic or denatured proteins, from partially broken down food and fish waste, to form a layer on the bubbles and on the surface of water.
Protein skimmers have been said to reduce DOC levels only by around 20%- this is because only the DOCs in the form of a stable foam is removed. This is where the biomedia of showers come in. Because the DOCs are partially separated from the water column, they are much more likely to stick to the crevices of the biomedia where it can be broken down more efficiently by microbial decomposers, rather than flow away with the rest of the water column. Perhaps the decomposition of DOCs is where the ammonia smell comes from, just like the smell of a properly functioning compost pile.
So to design an efficient shower, there are two opposing factors- agitation caused by flow and available surface of biomedia. Why not have both? Just connect the output of a half-height foam fractionator containing biobarrels directly to the manifold of a trickle filter containing a single layer of ceramic media. The foam fractionator part would have a small cross-sectional area to maximize flow, and the trickle filter would be wide to maximize available surface area.
This doesn't directly solve the problem of high head, but I think with a more efficient shower, you can get away with less flow overall. Ethan's phoam phractionators on this forum only need 1500 gph to generate foam because the flow is focused over a 6 inch diameter cross section. If it is followed by a well-designed shower manifold like the ones that Zac makes, you can trickle that amount of water over a lot of media.
In my opinion, we can think beyond nitrification and flow rates to build more efficient biofilters.
I do not have a problem with people building a low-profile shower filters to accommodate energy efficient pumps. I have a friend who is doing exactly that.
The problem I have is somebody building a low-profile shower filter and then saying they disproving the benefits or a traditionally stacked trays shower filter.
member
.
Last edited by IAmHolland; 09-20-2018 at 12:50 AM.
This thread was created to show what I'm doing, reporting back the resulting water quality, regardless of what it is. So, if water quality isn't perfect, will I hear, "well obviously it's because you didn't build a real shower filter." On the other hand, if the water is perfect, will I be accused of insulting traditionally stacked trays shower filter? Okay.
Yes, "Because you did not build a traditionally stacked shower filter with proper flow"
No, You will not be accused of insulting traditionally stacked shower filters.
BTW: I think low-profile showers and moving bed filters are a good alternative to the traditionally stacked shower filters.
member
As others have said, people have tried this before. But it would take a lot of flow/pressure to match the FF's foam production efficiency in a traditional shower. One would also have to make sure the foam doesn't dwell too long at the bottom of the shower.
My point is that with an ideal shower, you eventually wouldn't need a FF outlet because the components of the foam are broken down quickly by decomposers and then immediately nitrified by the nitrifiers, all on the surface of the ceramic media. The hybrid FF/shower that I'm suggesting might be able to accomplish some of this with less flow because that flow is initially focused over a small cross-sectional area, i.e. more turbulence. The 'bottom tray' would be wide and filled with ceramic media just like a traditional shower. I don't think you would even need the FF foam-outlet in between. Hopefully I can get some time to test this idea in the near future.
Last edited by bravetang8; 09-16-2018 at 03:30 PM.
Those are some crazy electric rates. So I won't mention that I just locked in at .058 cents fixed for 3 years with no fees.
.
Last edited by IAmHolland; 09-20-2018 at 12:49 AM.
.
Last edited by IAmHolland; 09-20-2018 at 12:48 AM.
It holds a thin piece of rigid plastic in a concave shape that "scrapes" the foam off the top. Here's the first time I saw
it utilized and I copied mine off of this one:
https://www.koiphen.com/forums/showth...02#post1649402
Pictures added to first post.