That was my original estimate but, after further calcs I'm thinking it’s actually closer to 30,000 gals. No, not 4,000. I'm making as much effort possible to improve the water quality and clarity during the summer while the spring is not running.
pump Brand
- Thread starter roscogruen
- Start date
Every little bit helps, but that's not very much flow for such a large body of water.
"we're gonna need a bigger boat" Oh! wrong movie...
There is NO WAY a 5,400 GPH pump is going to work in this situation. The turnover rate of your water is no where near what's needed for a 30,000 gal pond and you're going to end up with a mess.
You want to turn over your water at least once in under two hours. That would mean that you would need a minimum of a 15,000 gph pump (preferably higher). I turn my water over once per hour, for example.
You either need a way bigger pump or a way smaller pond. Why is it that you are looking to have such a large pond?
You want to turn over your water at least once in under two hours. That would mean that you would need a minimum of a 15,000 gph pump (preferably higher). I turn my water over once per hour, for example.
You either need a way bigger pump or a way smaller pond. Why is it that you are looking to have such a large pond?
I may need to go back to the design review again. I had the understanding that any filtering is better than no filtering but, what you’re saying sounds like I am incorrect about this. Is it an all or nothing kind of deal?
I don't expect to have the same quality/clarity as your pond but, I would like to have improvements beyond what I have for the summer months. My primary objective is to provide some circulation, oxygen, and remove some of the ammonia's and nitrates via a biological filter. In addition to pump and filtering, I can skim the surface layer and remove some of the solids from the pond as well which I would think would help quite a bit on maintaining to pond.
As a design basis, is it always one water change in under two hours and are there any exception to this? I'm assuming this time duration is based upon the worst common denominator and I'm curious on what that is.
I have stopped all work until I get this figured out. I don't want to add an expense for pump, filter and waterfall if I'm not going to get anything improvements from it.
I don't expect to have the same quality/clarity as your pond but, I would like to have improvements beyond what I have for the summer months. My primary objective is to provide some circulation, oxygen, and remove some of the ammonia's and nitrates via a biological filter. In addition to pump and filtering, I can skim the surface layer and remove some of the solids from the pond as well which I would think would help quite a bit on maintaining to pond.
As a design basis, is it always one water change in under two hours and are there any exception to this? I'm assuming this time duration is based upon the worst common denominator and I'm curious on what that is.
I have stopped all work until I get this figured out. I don't want to add an expense for pump, filter and waterfall if I'm not going to get anything improvements from it.
Well, it's definitely not going to hurt. And I think at 1/3 the usual minimum for a pond that size, it probably would do something useful, especially if the water would be stagnant without it. But depending on what you are trying to do, you might be disappointed with the results.
What exactly are you trying to do? Can you tell us more about your pond? You mentioned a spring; is this an open system part of the year? What kind of fish do you have in it? How many? How big? Is there much decaying vegetable matter? Are you trying to correct a particular problem with the new filtration system?
You've been getting responses appropriate for someone trying to keep many more fish than nature would ordinarily allow in a pond that doesn't have a natural steam flowing through it and which is cut off from the earth by rubber, epoxy, or cement. In this case, that little pump won't stand a chance of maintaining the pond properly. But you did say "spring", and hence I wonder if we're all talking about the same type of pond.
What exactly are you trying to do? Can you tell us more about your pond? You mentioned a spring; is this an open system part of the year? What kind of fish do you have in it? How many? How big? Is there much decaying vegetable matter? Are you trying to correct a particular problem with the new filtration system?
You've been getting responses appropriate for someone trying to keep many more fish than nature would ordinarily allow in a pond that doesn't have a natural steam flowing through it and which is cut off from the earth by rubber, epoxy, or cement. In this case, that little pump won't stand a chance of maintaining the pond properly. But you did say "spring", and hence I wonder if we're all talking about the same type of pond.
Thanks Otter. This is a mud pond that is spring feed. When the spring is open it runs 250GPH. While open the pond looks great because of the constant water change and skimming of the surface from the overflow. During this time the water can become crystal clear but, this is not my goal for this set up. In the summer, the spring stops and I don't get the benefits mentioned and the water becomes stagnant with a constant film developing on the surface. Looks good after a rain but only take a day or two for the film to build up again. On a visual standpoint, if it improves clarity all the better but, I mostly want to remove this surface layer. I'm not looking for it to be perfect but rather improve upon the conditions I currently have to maintain a healthy habitat for the fish. As for vegetative decay, I’m sure I get it with all the stuff that floats then sinks to the bottom after a rain but nothing really major. I also have water plants I expect to die off but, I go through and prune as thing die back. I have trees around so the fall may be interesting.
Right now I have 6 Koi and 10 goldfish. Koi are about 8"-10" and the goldfish are around 6". I've had the fish since spring and they are thriving but, I want to monitor all seasons with them before adding more. I look to have a total of 20 if the ones I have do well and I’ll potentially weed out the goldfish as they are beginning to multiply in great numbers.
Right now I have 6 Koi and 10 goldfish. Koi are about 8"-10" and the goldfish are around 6". I've had the fish since spring and they are thriving but, I want to monitor all seasons with them before adding more. I look to have a total of 20 if the ones I have do well and I’ll potentially weed out the goldfish as they are beginning to multiply in great numbers.
After watching the progress of your pond and all the work you two have put in it..
The 5400 gph is going to add a lot of movment, and will help you a lot through the dry months..and will be real nice when the spring starts running..
Its a big pond but you will be turning it over 4 times a day more than what you have now..
The 5400 gph is going to add a lot of movment, and will help you a lot through the dry months..and will be real nice when the spring starts running..
Its a big pond but you will be turning it over 4 times a day more than what you have now..
You might want to consider a high output, low wattage pump like the Harbor Freight, Chicago #95965, 3200 GPH, 270 watt, 18' head, pump running 24/7 into a bio filter, along with a much larger, higher volume pump that is run several times a day for 2-3 hours into a polishing filter that removes solids. Then keep your Koi population to about 1 per 500 gallons. With 40,000 gallons, 20 Koi would be it. You might get away with that during the periods when your spring is not turning over the water.
I have had one such pump running 24/7 for the past 18 months for circulation between my ponds.
I have had one such pump running 24/7 for the past 18 months for circulation between my ponds.
I peronally disagree completely. I think this sized pump is too small To say something is better than nothing makes no sense to me. It's as if it's okay to do the bare minimum. I just don't see how a 5400 gph pump can effectively move water in a 30,000 pond.
But, hey, to each his own! You can do as you wish.
But, hey, to each his own! You can do as you wish.
Lets debate it. What is wrong with the suggestion? Not everone wants or needs a swimming pool quality clarity for their natural ponds. Well maybe the folks at Koiphen might.
A large volume of water is not going to get overwhelmed with nitrates if there is some circulation, filtration and only a few fish. Mother nature does fine with high volume, low density, fish to water, ratio.
A large volume of water is not going to get overwhelmed with nitrates if there is some circulation, filtration and only a few fish. Mother nature does fine with high volume, low density, fish to water, ratio.
DrDave said:
Its not often that you hear the word reliability associated with a harborfreight borduct, but its good to know its been working well for you. I have had good luck with some of the pnumatic stuff but stayed away from the electric stuff so it is good to know that the pump has worked so well fo you.
So I read about the tetra OFX pumps in another thread that I cannot find now. Might have been deleted because the member was banned
Anyways so I looked up about these pumps and Im thinking I need to return my tetra 1900 and get a tetra OFX3000. The OFX2000 consumes less energy then the 1900 I got a lowes, but I think it doesn’t handle head as well so at the 2-3' of head I have it would have way less flow than the 1900. I have lets say 3' head and want like 1500-1700 gph at that height.
The max lift of the OFX2000 is 6.8'
GPH @ 2 ft. 1,325
GPH @ 4 ft. 800
115w
The max lift of the 1900 is stated at 192" or 16'
2 amps so like 220-240w
The flow ratings are on the side of the 1900 box which is at home right now but I know the GPH of the 1900 at 3’ is better than what the OFX2000 would give me less at like 1000gph.
So to get my flow I would need the OFX 3000 rated at:
GPH @ 2 ft. 2,450
GPH @ 4 ft. 2,000
GPH @ 6 ft.1,500
GPH @ 10 ft. 700.
It is rated at 240w
However the flow at 3’ may be TOO much, but at the same consumption of my 1900 if I Ted off some of the flow if it was needed to bypass the filter and go directly to the falls. I just like the fact that it collects debris better, but I think that is why it losses so much with head. It also costs a bit more from what I found, but on ebay for $230 shipped it is only like $50 more as I would also be returning the 1900 prefilter. Assuming it consumes the same amount of electricity do you think its worth it?
Know where else could get one cheaper?
Do you think I would I have to T off cause at 2200gph on my 100 gal bucket it would be filled 22/hour or each gallon would be in there 2.7 minutes calculated with nothing in it so it would be even less really. Not long enough according to some post I’ve read, but another person says 3000gph is good for the 100gal. Also, I have about double the size filter I need for the pond size of like 1000gal w/ 5-7 12” and under koi.
Not sure how I would T off some of the flow and have it go directly to the waterfall. Maybe send it to the stream, but im just thinking it would be best to get 100% of the debri it collects into the bottom of my skippy filter or send it right back into the pond to be collected again, not have collect in the stream.
My smaller 550 at .45amps uses only 54w so I cant go to the OFX2000 there and im sure its not ideal for use in a fines filter anyways....what to do...
I posted this in my build thread but got no replies so here it is again, slightly better written.
THANKS!
Airic, do you really need 15' of head? At 1265 watts, that pump is going to be expensive to run.Airic said:
yeah, I'll need the 15 ft of head for my water fall. I'll post some plans here in about a week. I really like dr daves idea on a second pump and I'll be using its as my primary. This big one will be for the falls.
In china this week so my pond play is going to be a bit delayed
In china this week so my pond play is going to be a bit delayed
Take a look at the ESBB series then.
http://www.highdesertkoi.com/pumps.htm
The ESBB16500 will deliver 13500 gph @ 15' for about the same amount of power as the pump you asked about. The 10500 will give you 7200 gph at 15' for only 540 watts. Granted both pumps are rather expensive, but once you factor in the cost of electricity, the more expensive pump will probably wind up being cheaper even in the medium run.
OTOH, maybe you don't want to run all that water over the falls. It would look great, of course, but you could save a lot of money by pumping only a small portion of the water up to the top and using a high flow, low head pump to run a significant part of your pond's volume through the filter every hour.
http://www.highdesertkoi.com/pumps.htm
The ESBB16500 will deliver 13500 gph @ 15' for about the same amount of power as the pump you asked about. The 10500 will give you 7200 gph at 15' for only 540 watts. Granted both pumps are rather expensive, but once you factor in the cost of electricity, the more expensive pump will probably wind up being cheaper even in the medium run.
OTOH, maybe you don't want to run all that water over the falls. It would look great, of course, but you could save a lot of money by pumping only a small portion of the water up to the top and using a high flow, low head pump to run a significant part of your pond's volume through the filter every hour.