⚠️ 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  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Jun 14th, '07, 07:26 
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
156m2 per gram :shock:

Does anyone know what a gram of sand looks like. Its not much. For it to have a surface area of 156m2 seems incredible.

Thats less than a teaspoon of sand has a surface area of around 12.5m x 12.5m.

Not saying that its wrong just seems incredible.

I once looked at the maths involved in calculating surface areas but I gave it up because its only an approximation anyway and I had good reasons for studying biology rather than maths (I woosed out).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
    Advertisement
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Jun 14th, '07, 08:41 
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22nd, '06, 00:28
Posts: 12757
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Gender: Male
Are you human?: YES- kinda
Location: Melb Vic OZ
stuart, it has to do with the particle size. picute a gram of sand in a fused block, it would have a surface area of the 6 sides added. now work out the surface area of each grain of sand and multiply it by the number of grains in one gram :shock: hence the incredible surface area.

BUT it has to be fluidized to work. at a certain vertical water flow rate the sand becomes fluid and behaves like a liquid, each grain of sand is suspended. They are indeed the holy grail of bioflter surface area in the aquarium game. they also tend to pulverise any solid waste due to the very abrasive nature of sand.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Jun 14th, '07, 08:43 
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: May 25th, '06, 07:52
Posts: 6857
Location: adelaide hills
Gender: Male
Are you human?: yes
Location: Adelaide Hills
so a double advantage for AP?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Jun 14th, '07, 08:45 
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22nd, '06, 00:28
Posts: 12757
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Gender: Male
Are you human?: YES- kinda
Location: Melb Vic OZ
yes and no, i don't think the solids are an issue with a good gravel bed, and i'd prefer trapped solids to silt. which is what we'd end up with becasue we're not running any mechanical micron filters.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Jun 14th, '07, 08:45 
Legend Member
Legend Member
User avatar

Joined: Aug 7th, '06, 20:23
Posts: 936
Location: Adelaide
Gender: Male
Location: South Australia
Went looking for the scales to weigh out a gram to take a photo, but they seemed to have gone walkabout.........

But it is rediculously high, and im guessing its prob the finest sand possible to use in fluidbed sand filters....

I can imagine it in my head, a gram cube of sand, "silce it" into slices a particle thick from left to right, and you get tons of slices, each slice with a relatively small surface area on each side, but a relatively small surface area timsed by a couple of hundred (or thousand) adds up.......Then slice the cube from front to back.....and then top to bottom.....and i can imagine that it could have a surface area of 156m2

sand sure trumps our lungs, with its surface area the size of a tennis court (havent checked that, but was told that in biology...)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Jun 14th, '07, 08:46 
Legend Member
Legend Member
User avatar

Joined: Aug 7th, '06, 20:23
Posts: 936
Location: Adelaide
Gender: Male
Location: South Australia
Doh!!! i took too long typing..


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Jun 14th, '07, 08:58 
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22nd, '06, 00:28
Posts: 12757
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Gender: Male
Are you human?: YES- kinda
Location: Melb Vic OZ
sorry dan, i'm stealing your thunder! ;)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jun 14th, '07, 09:10 
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
Quote:
sand sure trumps our lungs, with its surface area the size of a tennis court (havent checked that, but was told that in biology...)


Thats why I'm amazed. Consider the size of alveloi, around .1mm, and when their are about 300 million in a set of lungs weighing x Kg for a surface area of about 70-90m2.

By definition the finest sand has a particle size greater than 0.0625mm. A forty percent reduction in particle size (.06 compared with .1) is going to create a surface area massively greater than 40% by volume.

However if a set of lungs weighs 500g (1kg ?) and has a surface area of 60m2 then that is a surface area of .12m2/g. That means tha the sand has a surface area three orders of magnitude greater than a mammalian lung.

One of the other reasons why I gave up trying to calculate surface areas of mediums was because it was just so much easier to rely on the 2:1 [s]rule[/s] guideline instead.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Jun 14th, '07, 09:12 
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mar 22nd, '06, 00:28
Posts: 12757
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Gender: Male
Are you human?: YES- kinda
Location: Melb Vic OZ
the 2:1 is really the point, its not JUST bio-media, i'm sure that even 1:1 systems kill that, its the planting space and solids filtration also.

Don't forget that some sand particles under the 'scope are not cube, but irregular shapes, adding again to the individual particle surface area.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Jun 14th, '07, 09:27 
Legend Member
Legend Member
User avatar

Joined: Aug 7th, '06, 20:23
Posts: 936
Location: Adelaide
Gender: Male
Location: South Australia
steve wrote:
sorry dan, i'm stealing your thunder! ;)

im happy to share :lol:

steve wrote:
Don't forget that some sand particles under the 'scope are not cube, but irregular shapes, adding again to the individual particle surface area.

Yep, im sure not many sand particles are cubes :wink: good for us

steve wrote:
the 2:1 is really the point, its not JUST bio-media, i'm sure that even 1:1 systems kill that, its the planting space and solids filtration also.
.

yep, hence why i am gonna use a fbsf as will have lots of planting space, but not much gravel and hence not much room for bacteria colinisation, and i plan on stocking the water with a high biomass fish


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Jun 14th, '07, 09:31 
Legend Member
Legend Member
User avatar

Joined: Aug 7th, '06, 20:23
Posts: 936
Location: Adelaide
Gender: Male
Location: South Australia
yep, sand is pretty rough and uneven
http://www.almadenelementary.org/home/S ... index.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Jun 14th, '07, 09:48 
Legend Member
Legend Member
User avatar

Joined: Aug 7th, '06, 20:23
Posts: 936
Location: Adelaide
Gender: Male
Location: South Australia
Stuart Chignell wrote:
Quote:
sand sure trumps our lungs, with its surface area the size of a tennis court (havent checked that, but was told that in biology...)


Thats why I'm amazed. Consider the size of alveloi, around .1mm, and when their are about 300 million in a set of lungs weighing x Kg for a surface area of about 70-90m2.

By definition the finest sand has a particle size greater than 0.0625mm. A forty percent reduction in particle size (.06 compared with .1) is going to create a surface area massively greater than 40% by volume.

However if a set of lungs weighs 500g (1kg ?) and has a surface area of 60m2 then that is a surface area of .12m2/g. That means tha the sand has a surface area three orders of magnitude greater than a mammalian lung.

One of the other reasons why I gave up trying to calculate surface areas of mediums was because it was just so much easier to rely on the 2:1 [s]rule[/s] guideline instead.


Im not sure how accurate the surface area to volume ratio is for sand (because it does sound rediculously high), but there is no denying it that its one of the highest for a bio meda


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Jun 14th, '07, 10:17 
Valued Contributor
Valued Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Mar 26th, '07, 07:22
Posts: 73
Location: NW Slopes & Plains, NSW
Gender: Male
This page
Surface Area
calculates that the surface area of coarse to very fine sand is between 11 and 454 cm square per gram


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Jun 14th, '07, 10:49 
Legend Member
Legend Member
User avatar

Joined: Aug 7th, '06, 20:23
Posts: 936
Location: Adelaide
Gender: Male
Location: South Australia
interesting, i guess this helps highlight the discussion on misinformation in another thread ;)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Jun 14th, '07, 11:23 
Xtreme Contributor
Xtreme Contributor

Joined: Mar 14th, '07, 20:41
Posts: 242
Location: esperance
Gender: Male
Speaking of bio filters,I would like some opinions on using UV light filters to keep algae buildup down!
Sorry BK for intruding but were still on topic. Ive been offered an 18 watt inline unit on loan to clean up my fish tank (9000 litres) .
thank you all for any information forthcoming.
colin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  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:  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Portal by phpBB3 Portal © phpBB Türkiye
[ Time : 0.176s | 14 Queries | GZIP : Off ]