⚠️ This forum has been restored as a read-only archive so the knowledge shared by the community over many years remains available. New registrations and posting are disabled.

All times are UTC + 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Jun 29th, '14, 14:39 
Xtreme Contributor
Xtreme Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Jan 13th, '14, 07:37
Posts: 218
Gender: Male
Are you human?: too early to tell
Location: coastal Victoria
Stonewall,

"You may need something like a mini sump in each grow bed for the pump to sit in."

Yes mate, that's be how I'd do it. I'd like it if they were as close to the fish tanks as possible.

"I'm not sure if this is even a realistic concern, but could the water from the fish tanks siphon back into the growbed once the pump shuts off?"

I think up to a certain size you would copy standard aquaponics designs that deal with problems but as Stuart pointed out above, when it gets really industrial you're gonna have to make allowances for new problems that result from larger scaled installations.

I will have to draw and post some pictures of what the thing might look like on the ground because I think folk are having trouble visualizing it. To be fair, the flow chart jpeg I posted is very light on detail and was only meant as a primer.

In actuality it really isn't too different from CHIFT PIST except that instead of water getting a siphon trip to a sump it gets pumped from the growbed to next fishtank in the line and so on.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
    Advertisement
 
PostPosted: Jun 29th, '14, 15:07 
Xtreme Contributor
Xtreme Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Jan 13th, '14, 07:37
Posts: 218
Gender: Male
Are you human?: too early to tell
Location: coastal Victoria
Charlie,

Your comment is fair enough. The Flowchart Jpeg at the top of the tread is very light on detail and was only intended as a primer on the idea. Some people are getting it but most have responded as you have saying they don't see the point. I feel the idea is worth investigating and hope people will invest the time to "get it" at least.

The tone of information has been set largely by forces outside of my control because I've been responding to other peoples comments. At the same time me and Stuart are talking about big installation issues and clouding the water,so to speak.

I will draw some paint pictures and try to fill out the detail a bit. People often appreciate an idea if they can get visual cues about how it will look on the ground.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jun 29th, '14, 16:24 
Seriously, this cant be healthy.
Seriously, this cant be healthy.
User avatar

Joined: Feb 23rd, '07, 03:48
Posts: 6715
Location: Lyonville Victoria
Gender: Male
Are you human?: yes
Location: Lyonville
telonline wrote:
Stuart,

"$17,000"

Easy Stuart, that number gave me the vapors and I nearly passed out.

Part of the difference is what we are focusing on. I'm less worried about upfront capital cost as long as it pays its way down the line. The cheap chinese pumps you mentioned may not cost anywhere near that may be as little as half what the lagunas would cost but the will probably only be half as efficient say 20% to 25%. At 25% efficient you energy usage will be around 8.83kw which over a year is $24,752. That is the number that gives me vapors especially since it comes around year after year especially compared to the cost of the 80% energy efficient pump which is only $7734 per annum to operate.

Quote:
Axial versus Centrifugal. A vertically compact system is very achievable with this system and as heads can be reduced to the very minimum required for system performance. It would have to be examined by an expert but my guess is head could be reduced to less than a Half a meter for a one quarter acre fish tank one acre Tank/GB node. I also agree, multiple pumps and overflows can reduce this further.

Well yes and no. The four node design in the original post has four heads. If they are all 0.5m and the flow rate is 1000L/hr then each IBC (in this case) is getting its water turned over once per hour. WHat is happening though is that within that hour four times 1000L is being lifted 0.5m and put through an IBC and a GB. There are two ways you can look at this. One is as just mentioned 1000L is being lifted 0.5m four times per hour. The other way is 1000L being lifted 2m per hour. As physicists define WORK (P=hpgQ) both expressions are equal. If you had the four nodes arranged on a terraced hill side the effect in terms of energy usage would be the same. Getting the system to run smoothly would be trickier as getting the cascade to work reliably would be something I would not want to do on a small scale but the pumping arrangement would be simpler plus it is easier to find energy efficient pumps at higher heads so it would be easier to get such a design to use less energy.

I'm not suggesting such a design would be better just trying to illustrate that while reducing head height is generally a good thing doing so by adding pumps and splitting the work doesn't actually help and can make things worse (from an energy use point of view).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jun 29th, '14, 18:13 
A posting God
A posting God
User avatar

Joined: Dec 10th, '11, 15:03
Posts: 2089
Gender: Male
Are you human?: What is human?
Location: Perth Hills
Stuart Chignell wrote:
Quote:
The other point I would make is to not get caught up in requiring sumps etc. In reality, a sump is just as effective at being a fish tank as the fish tank itself. Typically, people on this forum use the term sump tank to mean the tank that water drains into, but if you put fish in there, what is the difference? If that makes sense....


Sumps and FTs perform very different functions and a commercial system that uses a sump as a FT will have to work a lot harder to maintain its water quality than one that has separate FTs and sumps.


Acknowledged. However, as long as you are not actually increasing you bioload, would it be that much more work? There would be advantages I imagine, such as grading the fish, different species etc.


Stuart Chignell wrote:
For larger scale systems it is not so simple. Sump design is a subset of pump engineering and getting your sump design wrong can KILL your pump. The most obvious example is where a free to air vortex is formed (like in the bath when you pull the plug) this causes massive cavitation and causes a pump to shake itself apart and destroys impellers. What is often harder to detect are contained or submerged vortices. This is where there is a vortex being induced into the pump but it is not free to the surface. You can get these in sumps that are poorly designed and because they are hard to detect are one of the most common causes of pump death/failure (inappropriate solids are the most common).


This is the point I was trying to make about requiring smaller pumps or multiple drain points through a large grow bed. The volumes of water being moved, it is not as simple as dropping a pump in the grow bed and away it goes. So you need multiples of smaller pumps and loose out on pumping efficiency or you need a sump. The other point, with pumps the size you are talking, external pumps would be a massive win. Far easier to service etc.

Stuart Chignell wrote:
I'm working on getting better at the explaining bit.


You most definitely are Stuart :)


telonline wrote:
You seem to be getting caught up in Nomenclature forget about what you call something and focus on its function. A sump with fish in it is a fish tank. A sump is used in normal AP is a reservoir that you draw on during normal system operation because water requirements fluctuate. This system uses the water reservoir as a dynamic system component rather than a passive adjunct to overcome a problem. That of fluctuating water requirements.


Sure, if you have a F&D or siphon system a sump is there to help manage the fluctuating water levels. With your system design in your first post you have not facility for managing changes in water volume anyway. You will be chasing the tide with top ups.


telonline wrote:
Yes, with one or two concerns. They have to do with modularity and water retention times.
As system size expands it would be wise to add several discreet tides circulating through the system. A gravity fed system while reducing the theoretical pump stations to one, because of its passive design, makes flow control more difficult to manage than an active one.


Intelligence is Wisdom's ugly sister. Don't herd cats, don't fight nature, and you'll be fine


I think the reason I dont understand the advantages of your system is, it feels like you are fighting nature. It feels like there is a lot of pumping to achieve these 'tides' through the system when I dont see any advantage of it that cant be achieved with alternative designs requiring less pumping.

Charlie wrote:
I guess I'm not intelligent enough because I've got no idea what this is all about and I've read most of the posts 2 or 3 times. A few posts are referring to modular then the next there is reference to acre size GBs, I'm not good at making up dream systems in my head so I'll let you and Stu continue on..


The talk of acre sized grow beds was purely a theoretical situation based on this comment. telonline is trying to achieve F&D type system in very large grow beds by having tides, so no sump is needed.

telonline wrote:
When money and size are no object or are economically appropriate then you could have machinery drive onto the growbed to plant and harvest mechanically. All while using one tenth of the water of conventional farming and zero wastage of nutrient or runoff issues.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jun 29th, '14, 19:07 
Xtreme Contributor
Xtreme Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Jan 13th, '14, 07:37
Posts: 218
Gender: Male
Are you human?: too early to tell
Location: coastal Victoria
All'

This post is to try and flesh out some of the detail on this type of system.

The attached paint file show a six node system with each node being single growbed and fish tank combination.

In operation the system is very similar to the CHIFT PIST systems in that water onerflows through the fish tank's Solids Lifting Overflow into a growbed.

Where this system differs is that when the growbed becomes full of water instead of triggering a bell siphon and being siphoned into a sump, it triggers a float switch that starts a pump in the growbed.

Now that the pump in the growbed is running it pumps the water from the growbed into the next fish tank in sequence of nodees and when the first growbed is empty the the float switch turns the pump off. In the pictured system each node will go through the same sequence until tank six overflows into growbed one and the process starts over again.

How much water is in the system?

The system must contain enough water to fill all the fish tanks to the point that if any more water was added the Solids Lifting Overflow would begin to flow. In addition the system must have sufficient water to fill one and a half growbeds. This amount is required to trigger the next growbed's pump float switch in the sequence.

Is it better?

Since most backyarder don't want or need multiple tanks it wouldn't work for them.
As a system for growing plants, it offers no advantage over a bell siphon or timed flood and drain.

In a system with three tanks and growbeds or more then it can allow you to do away with siphons and sumps.
And that is all it does.

If using this system a flood and drain type system can be built on the ground as it does away with the plumbing below the growbed.
Because of this it scales up to very large sizes that would make siphons difficult and sumps enormous.

Is it worse?

Much has been made that it requires a pump for each growbed but in truth most installation of more conventional systems utilize a pump per tank so it's no worse really.

Because the systems nodes share water, diseases present in the water will spead though the whole system

Where this system is worse is it requires some way of turning the pumps on and off. At its most basic you would use float switches and that adds an additional point of failure. To many this would be unacceptable. There may also be a reduction in pump life spans due the on/off nature of the system

Any other benefits?

I does allow nutrient load to be spread across multiple tanks so in a situation where you have fingerlings in one node or have harvested a tank of mature fish, nutrients will still pass through those nodes.

Its main benifit is it scales well as the system is fundamentally the samw whether growbeds are ten square feet or ten thousand square feet.

How would I use it?

Regardless of size I would use it in sets of three nodes. This keeps fish tank water retention times shortest and limits disease outbreaks to three nodes.


Attachments:
6x6 GB.jpg
6x6 GB.jpg [ 108.29 KiB | Viewed 6617 times ]
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jun 30th, '14, 00:42 
Bordering on Legend
Bordering on Legend
User avatar

Joined: May 15th, '12, 22:31
Posts: 355
Gender: Male
Are you human?: barely
Location: Florida, USA
In my opinion, if you are trying to grow commodity crops like corn, rice, soy, etc. with aquaponics the best way to go with little upfront capital costs would just be to have a drain to waste system into your fields of crops. Capture the solids from your FT's in your settling tanks/suspended solids filters and aerate them in a large vat and proceed to pump the decanted water out to your crops. No upfront costs on gravel, not spending nearly the amount you would on pumps, and no need to worry about your GB's overflowing, etc.

Now if you're looking to grow retail items such as lettuce, kale, herbs, etc. then I think there is no better method than a DWC floating bed until proven otherwise. Cool discussion though even though I'm with Charlie and don't understand most of what's going on.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jun 30th, '14, 07:50 
Xtreme Contributor
Xtreme Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Jan 13th, '14, 07:37
Posts: 218
Gender: Male
Are you human?: too early to tell
Location: coastal Victoria
Sam,

Fair comments,

I would just say that aquaponics has the ability to do agriculture with fractions of the water necessary of conventional methods. It also retains nitrogen within the system so it doesn't come with the associated run-off presently ruining our waterways.

Demand pressure on fresh water resources and rock phosphate deposit shortages will tip the financial equations on their head. People will be looking for solutions and aquaponics will be part of the solutions. If that happens, they will want aquaponics at scales larger than than sumps and siphons can deliver.

Site selection for such a large installations can take advantage of land largely unused presently for agriculture or even habitation such as deserts or highly toxic sites.

As well as this, other options will open before us. For example, wastes flue ashes that are presently dumped in landfill will become resources ,as LECA demand skyrockets. Worm and BSF farms would have virtually unfulfillable markets for their worms and larvae products as feed alternatives are developed.

Is this the very best solution to growing salad greens?...perhaps not at present.
Is this system idea worthless?....I don't think it is. Turning deserts into farms liberates arable land to pastures for running live stock delivering cheaper animal protein to the masses as the need for feed lot protein decreases.

Its my hope that people will ask, "What can aquaponics do for us?" I think the answer is a lot if it moves out of the backyard and is integrated into the mainstream agricultural streams.

This idea may help facilitate those synergies. To dismiss it out of hand may be a mistake when all people need do is invest some imagination. The road from here to there is paved with ideas.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jul 1st, '14, 06:32 
Seriously, this cant be healthy.
Seriously, this cant be healthy.
User avatar

Joined: Feb 23rd, '07, 03:48
Posts: 6715
Location: Lyonville Victoria
Gender: Male
Are you human?: yes
Location: Lyonville
I just thought of something about the relative costs of GBs and FTs versus IBCs

The $/m3 I was givinng to compare IBCs with custom tanks were calculated using a top quality liner that is $20/m2.

If you did the same calculation with EPDM ($10-12/m2 (wholesale)) then it would be considerably cheaper, with LLDPE cheaper again at $5/m2 and with PVC $2.5/m2.

That would make the it $42/m3 using EPDM.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jul 1st, '14, 11:03 
Legend Member
Legend Member
User avatar

Joined: Apr 4th, '11, 01:40
Posts: 790
Gender: Male
Are you human?: yes
Location: dallas tx
you could make all the fish tanks and grow beds equal height, Aerate your fish tanks, constant flood your grow beds and use one pump or air lift pump to move water through the whole system.

Less power, less complexity, less chance of failure.


A common problem people have is their one pump dying and they lose fish to poor water conditions. If you have any one of 4 pumps or 6 pumps you just increase the risk of a failure. You are using more power, more chance of failure and no gains.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jul 1st, '14, 12:14 
Seriously, this cant be healthy.
Seriously, this cant be healthy.
User avatar

Joined: Feb 23rd, '07, 03:48
Posts: 6715
Location: Lyonville Victoria
Gender: Male
Are you human?: yes
Location: Lyonville
bcotton wrote:
you could make all the fish tanks and grow beds equal height, Aerate your fish tanks, constant flood your grow beds and use one pump or air lift pump to move water through the whole system.

Less power, less complexity, less chance of failure.


Not necessarily less power.

There has been some good work done in the waste processing industry on the ability of FnD gravel beds being able to process more waste per KWhr than mineralisations tanks.

One of the major reasons I think GBs may have a place in AP is there ability to process more solids per kwhr. When the GBs are drained the biota in the beds will still be "eating" the solids and will be drawing their oxygen from the air instead of the water.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jul 1st, '14, 12:23 
Xtreme Contributor
Xtreme Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Jan 13th, '14, 07:37
Posts: 218
Gender: Male
Are you human?: too early to tell
Location: coastal Victoria
Brian,

Yep absolutely you could but some species of plants don't like wet feet while others absolutely thrive under such conditions. My guess is that a mix or targeted application of the grow methods is the future..

Stuart,

At really big scales I think even the cheapest sheeting options will become impractical. At this point I'm looking at some type of pinned down open weave geo-textile with a bitumem over spray as the waterproof component of the membrane.

It's interesting I was looking at PVC and EPDM prices, just this morning, for the backyard test build. I want it sufficiently tough so it will not be punctured by the media as I'm walking around tending growbeds.

The space efficiency is excellent. For the growbeds I will be boxing up three contiguous rectangles. Virtually every centimeter of Green house will be available for planting.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jul 1st, '14, 12:32 
Seriously, this cant be healthy.
Seriously, this cant be healthy.
User avatar

Joined: Feb 23rd, '07, 03:48
Posts: 6715
Location: Lyonville Victoria
Gender: Male
Are you human?: yes
Location: Lyonville
telonline wrote:
Brian,

Yep absolutely you could but some species of plants don't like wet feet while others absolutely thrive under such conditions. My guess is that a mix or targeted application of the grow methods is the future..

Stuart,

At really big scales I think even the cheapest sheeting options will become impractical. At this point I'm looking at some type of pinned down open weave geo-textile with a bitumem over spray as the waterproof component of the membrane.

It's interesting I was looking at PVC and EPDM prices, just this morning, for the backyard test build. I want it sufficiently tough so it will not be punctured by the media as I'm walking around tending growbeds.

The space efficiency is excellent. For the growbeds I will be boxing up three contiguous rectangles. Virtually every centimeter of Green house will be available for planting.


I've looked at a lot of spray on liner options and they just haven't stacked up. There was one operation that did but their machine blew up and the supplier of the machine and product wouldn't fix it so they closed the business.

PVC is cheap but I would seriously recommend not using it. First of all the health implications, second it is no way near as reliable as I would like (personal experience).

For comparison purposes check out http://www.geoffmiller.com.au/ They are the people I got the PVC liner prices from and they are very good for cheap GH coverings (best I've found). They may be doing EPDM now as well, although I'm not sure.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jul 1st, '14, 12:38 
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: May 6th, '11, 12:06
Posts: 12206
Gender: Male
Location: Northern NSW
Less pumps would definately be less power but a power draw comparison would need to be made on 6 small pumps compared to 1 big pump over a complete cycle time frame. I think 1 pump would still come out on top for all three reasons bcotton mentioned.

It would be interesting to see results from KWhr mineralisation between FnD media beds and mineralisation tanks. Mineralisation tanks would require aeration so there is that power usage but how often and for how long to get maximum waste processing, theres also the additional labour/monitoring systems to achieve this. A FnD bed doesnt require any of this but Id like to see at what rate a media bed processes the wastes.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jul 1st, '14, 12:51 
Seriously, this cant be healthy.
Seriously, this cant be healthy.
User avatar

Joined: Feb 23rd, '07, 03:48
Posts: 6715
Location: Lyonville Victoria
Gender: Male
Are you human?: yes
Location: Lyonville
The figure I have from a waste processing manual was 473gO2/m2 with an electricity usage of 0.18kwh/m3.

This compares with 0.76kWh/m3 for mineralisation tank.

However, having praised the efficiency of GBs remember that the figures are very installation specific. A shallow GB will use less electricty than a deep one. A deep MT may or may not use more electricity than a shallow one. Like all things AP "it depends".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jul 1st, '14, 14:58 
Xtreme Contributor
Xtreme Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Jan 13th, '14, 07:37
Posts: 218
Gender: Male
Are you human?: too early to tell
Location: coastal Victoria
Stuart,

I would want as much bang for the bucks when it comes to growbed membrane but I'm pretty sure absolute integrity would be impossible so options could be considered. Just like we see on our own systems bio-slime can heal most weeping issues.

When it comes to tanks I would definitely go all out for membrane integrity. I'll definitely look at the web site as it's an issue for me right now.

Charlie,

I'm not certain myself about the best way to move the water. Do you go one big pump or would combinations be better, who knows. After the initial be flood I think from a fish perspective get as much water moving as fast as possible and taper off as the growbed empties, might be the go. For my home trial I'm going with single pumps and baki shower for safety.

When it comes to mineralization, what I know about it could be written on a post it note. I'm really a blank.

I'm inclined to towards conservative fish to GB volume rations and worms if that is the only method of mineralization. At least if it's a big system you could regulate feed rates for some addition control. Other than that size is gonna be your friend unless your forced into a water change then all bets would be off.

All,

I've made it pretty plain in the past, how I feel about air, pumping air would be my last option.

Concerning construction of the Imaginary Giant System,

I think I'd go with lined turkey nests for the tanks and use the spoil as material for the growbed bunding.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC + 8 hours


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Portal by phpBB3 Portal © phpBB Türkiye
[ Time : 0.064s | 15 Queries | GZIP : Off ]